Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ISLE OF WIGHT BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [9 November],
That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment to the Preamble, page 1, line 4, at the end, to insert the words—
'(2) By the Isle of Wight Act 1980 it was provided that the said section 5 should continue to have effect notwithstanding the provisions of section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972:'—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Debate further adjourned till Tuesday 14 November.

ST. GEORGE'S HILL, WEYBRIDGE, ESTATE BILL (By Order)

HYTHE MARINA VILLAGE (SOUTHAMPTON) WAVESCREEN BILL (By Order)

NEW SOUTHGATE CEMETERY AND CREMATORIUM LIMITED BILL (By Order)

CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL (By Order)

Orders read for consideration of Lords amendments.

To be considered on Tuesday 14 November.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be further considered on Tuesday 14 November.

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

BROMLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (CRYSTAL PALACE) BILL (By Order)

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT TRANSIT BILL [Lords] (By Order)

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords] (By Order)

UNITED MEDICAL AND DENTAL SCHOOLS BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Tuesday 14 November.

VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 14 November.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] SUSPENSION

Motion made,
That so much of the Lords Messages [2nd November, 7th November and 8th November] as relates to the River Tees Barrage and Crossing Bill [Lords], the Happisburgh Lighthouse Bill [Lords], the Great Yarmouth Port Authority Bill [Lords], the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill [Lords], the Heathrow Express Railway Bill [Lords], the London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill [Lords] and the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill [Lords] be now considered.
That this House doth concur with the Lords in their Resolution.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Tuesday 14 November.

PENZANCE ALBERT PIER EXTENSION BILL

Motion made,
That so much of the Lords Message [2nd November] as relates to the Penzance Albert Pier Extension Bill be now considered.
That the Promoters of the Penzance Albert Pier Extension Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Tuesday 14 November.

NOTTINGHAM PARK ESTATE BILL [Lords]

Motion made,
That the Promoters of the Nottingham Park Estate Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office no later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That the Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the, House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Tuesday 14 November.

VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords]

Motion made,
That the Promoters of the Vale of Glamorgan (Barry Harbour) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Tuesday 14 November.

MEDWAY TUNNEL BILL [Lords]

Motion made,
That the Promoters of the Medway Tunnel Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;


That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Tuesday 14 November.

GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) (No. 3) BILL [Lords]

Motion made,
That the Promoters of the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 3) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration had been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills;
That, no petitions against the Bill having been presented within the time limited within the present Session, no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the committee;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Tuesday 14 November.

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Birmingham City Council (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords] shall have leave, except as provided by these orders, to suspend further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid:

Ordered,
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;

Ordered,
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first time and referred to the Examiners Of Petitions for Private Bills;

Ordered,
That, no petitions against the Bill having been presented within the time limited within the present Session, no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the committee;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE SOUTHBANK BILL

Motion made,
That the Promoters of the British Film Institute Southbank Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.— [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Tuesday 14 November.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

Motion made,
That the Promoters of the British Railways Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceeding and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Tuesday 14 November.

BROMLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (CRYSTAL PALACE) BILL

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Bromley London Borough Council (Crystal Palace) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the


Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL

Motion made,
That the Promoters of the City of London (Various Powers) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Tuesday 14 November.

REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL

Motion made,
That the Promoters of the Redbridge London Borough Council Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Tuesday 14 November.

Oral Answers to Questions — Oral Answers to Questions

Mr. Barry Field: Further to my point of order on Friday, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that in the conduct of private——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This has nothing to do with questions. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order, if it is connected with private business, at the proper time.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Electricity Privatisation

Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he plans to set a date for the privatisation of the electricity industry.

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects the restructuring of the electricity supply industry to be implemented; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): The Government intend to implement the new structure of the industry at the end of March 1990 and to complete its privatisation within this Parliament; the area boards will be offered for sale in autumn 1990 and the two generating companies will be offered for sale in the first half of 1991.

Mr. Macdonald: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his new-found enthusiasm for the mixed economy, but I warn him that he still has some way to go. Does he agree that the decision to abandon the privatisation of nuclear power should have been taken 12 months ago by his predecessor, and that if it had been, he would not have been left with this shambles?

Mr. Wakeham: I agree with the hon. Gentleman this far—[Interruption.] It is not very far. If the decision had been taken before I would not have been involved in dealing with the matter when I arrived. However, it was not until the late summer and the beginning of autumn that the terms which the private sector wanted for the privatisation of nuclear power became apparent and those terms, as I reported to the House on Thursday, I was unable to recommend.

Mr. Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that the statute under which he exercises his responsibilities, which was passed by the coalition Government in April 1945, requires him to be personally responsible for promoting economy and efficiency in the supply of energy? Will he now institute a public inquiry into how it was that successive chairmen of the generating board misled successive Secretaries of State on the true costs of nuclear power, at a cost to the taxpayers and electricity consumers of many billions of pounds? In those circumstances does he think it right that Lord Marshall should be compensated when he leaves the generating board?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not believe that an inquiry is necessary. The principal concerns about the price of nuclear power arose because of the high capital charges and the return on investment and not so much, as some

have suggested, because of the decommissioning costs and fuel service charges. I believe that those concerns arose, as I told the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) a few moments ago, in the summer of this year—that was why I was faced with a difficult decision.
I fully accept all my responsibilities as laid down under the statute—as no doubt the right hon. Gentleman did when in my position—and I do not believe that a public inquiry is necessary.

Mr. Rost: Now that nuclear power is excluded from the privatisation is there not an overwhelming case for adjusting the imbalance between National Power and PowerGen to create a more competitive climate among producers?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my hon. Friend's point, but I do not believe that that is necessary. I believe that a competitive market is developing and the proposals that I have made will ensure fair competition between the generators, whatever their size, especially the independent generators which will strongly enter the market. To change the allocation of stations at this stage would risk failing to complete privatisation in this Parliament and that would not be in the consumers' interests.

Mr. Dobson: Does the Secretary of State agree that his statement last Thursday, like the 13th chime of the clock, cast doubt on all that had gone before? Is it not true that no one believes any of the figures quoted by his Department in furtherance of privatisation? Does he agree that it would be better, particularly as the Government are blaming the advisers and the generating board for those figures, if the Government published a White Paper spelling out all the advice that they have received on costs and prices and projections of costs and prices for oil, coal and nuclear power stations? Would not that permit rational discussion of what is happening and some rational decisions to be taken? In short, would it not be best if the Government came clean on figures?

Mr. Wakeham: One problem in the past has been that some of these costs have been hidden away and we have not fully realised what they are. We believe that by our creating an electricity generating industry that is highly competitive, the market will determine the best costs, and the Government will welcome the competition that follows.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made in the setting up of independent generation companies after the restructuring of the electricity supply industry.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): There are approaching 20 independent projects in prospect, which will provide up to 15 per cent. of present capacity in England and Wales. The first new independent generating company to be established as a result of our privatisation proposals is Lakeland Power, which has just signed a contract with the North Western electricity board for 220 MW of gas-fired generation.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend accept that without the privatisation programme we might not have heard the true cost of nuclear power and that, therefore, good has come of it? Does he also accept that the rationale behind splitting the CEGB into only two companies—of


which one, National Power, will produce 70 per cent. of the electricity—was nuclear power? As that rationale has now disappeared, does he agree that competition to keep down the cost of energy is most important and that there should be more than two generation companies, possibly four or five, so that people can see that privatisation is for the good of the consumer?

Mr. Spicer: I agree with about three quarters of that. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that competition is the force which will bring down costs. Of course, that competition is absent in the present structure in which the monopolist sets up the costs and passes them straight to the consumer. I part company with my hon. Friend when he says that to generate competition it is necessary further to sub-divide the two major companies. There will be a multiplicity of companies and company sizes and, as I said in my initial answer, we know of 20 independent projects coming to the market representing about 15 per cent. of present capacity. That means that there will be a multiplicity of competition.

Mr. Allen McKay: Why is the Minister so confident about the cost of electricity when a document from his Department to the Cabinet said that, on privatisation, electricity prices would rise by 15 per cent. for domestic consumers and by 25 per cent. for industrial comsumers?

Mr. Spicer: I shall not comment on leaked documents, and old documents at that. There is no doubt that the competitive pressures that will exist in the industry as a result of privatisation will put downward pressure on costs. As I said, a multiplicity of new projects have been proposed with cost structures considerably below those of the present industry. New types of generation, for instance gas-fired generation, are coming forward. They have much lower cost structures and that will have an effect on prices.

Mr. Andy Stewart: In view of the statement last week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy on the future of the nuclear generating industry, does my hon. Friend agree that it is time to promote more strongly and quickly the environmentally friendly mini-power stations to take advantage of the cheap coal that is produced in Nottinghamshire?

Mr. Spicer: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that the Nottinghamshire UDM pits have been increasing their efficiency quite remarkably. They are now among the highest productivity pits in the country. If those pits continue to improve their present rate of productivity and increased efficiency, there will be a great future not only for Nottinghamshire but for the coal industry as a whole.

Mr. Doran: The Secretary of State will be aware that the oil industry and the gas producers have invested heavily with a view to entering the electricity generating market with a cleaner fuel—gas. Given the present shambles of electricity privatisation, what are the prospects for that investment proceeding?

Mr. Spicer: That is a non-sequitur. The gas-fired generation proposals are made possible only because of privatisation and because of the competitive pressures that that will place on the industry. Far from its being a shambles, we are setting up a whole new structure that will remarkably increase the pace of competition in the industry and the downward pressure on costs. Those things will benefit the consumer.

Mr. Favell: My hon. Friend will be aware of the plan to place National Power's headquarters in Swindon and those of PowerGen in Birmingham. That will result in Europa house, a regional headquarters in Stockport, being phased out and 600 or 700 jobs being lost or relocated. When the new nuclear company is formed will my hon. Friend consider basing it in Stockport where there already is a dedicated, experienced and hard working staff—especially of women who cannot move elsewhere and who, if they were in the south, would be worth their weight in gold? The present plan is for a headquarters in the midlands and one in the south, and a headquarters in the north-west would be very welcome.

Mr. Spicer: I know that my hon. Friend has been pressing me hard on behalf of his constituents, whose jobs are at risk. As to whether, under the new arrangements, a headquarters will be placed in his constituency, I cannot give him a definitive answer, but I am sure that his points have been noted.

British Coal

Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Wakeham: I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

Mr. Illsley: Did the Secretary of State recently discuss the suggestion which appears to have been put to the Cabinet, that between 12,000 and 30,000 jobs will be lost in the coal industry over the next three or four years? Will he confirm that those job losses will have to be met by compulsory redundancies?

Mr. Wakeham: No, I did not discuss it in those terms. Coal contracts are a matter for commercial negotiations between the parties. Those are still in progress, and it will be for British Coal to decide what manpower it will require in the light of the tonnage that it can profitably produce and sell in competition with other fuels. I hope that it will get a large slice of the market.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: When my right hon. Friend next talks to the chairman of British Coal, will he point out that although his announcement last week may not have been very good news for the nuclear industry, it is potentially extremely good news for the coal industry and for the future of new coal technologies? Will he point out that the coal industry has everything to gain from increasing its competitiveness and further intensifying its productivity?

Mr. Wakeham: The chairman of British Coal is a wise and experienced person, and I am sure that he has already taken those points on board. I have no doubt that when I see him again shortly, I shall discuss these matters. My hon. Friend is right—there is a good future for British Coal if it can produce coal at prices that meet those of the competition. I have every reason to believe that it can produce a substantial part of our basic fuel requirements.

Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware that it would be disadvantageous for Britain if we became dependent on foreign coal supplies? Does he accept that a number of foreign coal suppliers are already prepared to sell coal to Britain at a price cheaper than that at which it is available in Europe? Is that not an extremely dangerous position,


and one which he would do well to advise the country not to accept, as dependence on foreign coal is strategically unwise, and would become enconomically foolish?

Mr. Wakeham: Dependence upon any form of fuel would be unwise. We require a diversity of supply. As I said in a reply to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) on Thursday, British Coal must make itself competitive against not only imported coal but oil and natural gas. That is the challenge for it, and I am sure that it will rise to the occasion.

Sir Trevor Skeet: As there is likely to be a shortage of electricity in the late 1990s, particularly with the elimination of the three nuclear stations in the programme, how does my right hon. Friend propose to take up the shortfall? Has he discussed this with the chairman of British Coal?

Mr. Wakeham: I have satisfied myself that there will not be a capacity shortfall. Already, a substantial number of independent projects are coming forward. There is potential for life extension of some plant, and I am wholly confident that our privatisation proposals will ensure that capacity demands are met.

Mr. Barron: Given that, last week, the Secretary of State announced that the Government would protect the nuclear industry via the British taxpayer, is it fair that the British coal industry, which over the past four years has cut costs by 30 per cent., improved productivity by over 90 per cent. and suffered job losses of 140,000, should lose jobs because of the importation of foreign coal?

Mr. Wakeham: We are not protecting the nuclear industry in the sense that it will be cash-positive from the day that it is set up. The hon. Gentleman, who knows a great deal about the industry, was less than fair in the way in which he put his supplementary question. He did not mention that the taxpayer has financed over £6·5 billion of investment and provided over £10 billion of grant since 1979. That shows an unrivalled commitment to the coal industry by the Government.

Mr. Roger King: Did my right hon. Friend discuss with the chairman the environmental impact of fossil fuel power stations on our ecological system? Did he see "The Money Programme" on BBC2 last night, during which we were told that an American power station has been set up which is energy efficient and, as far as possible, emission proof? The cost of taking out the CO2 has been passed over to a South American country in the form of a grant to plant millions of trees to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a sensitive approach and one which should interest British Coal?

Mr. Wakeham: British Coal is well aware of the need to improve the environmental acceptability of coal as a fuel, as are the generating companies that will use the fuel. I have no doubt that British Coal will take note of what my hon. Friend said. I do not watch television very often. I feel like my right hon. and noble Friend Lord St. John of Fawsley: I seem to appear on television more than watch it these days.

East Midlands Electricity Board

Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the East Midlands electricity board; and what matters they discussed.

Mr. Michael Spicer: My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of the East Midlands electricity board regularly and discuss a range of issues of mutual interest.

Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that the chairman of the East Midlands electricity board, Mr. Harris, and the local manager for the area, Mr. Huddleston, are open, honest and above board? Why has a scandalous document been leaked from the Cabinet? It is all right for the Minister to say that everything is lovely in Nottinghamshire, but we want some honesty, not flannel. The document has the name of the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) written all over it. We want some honesty at the Dispatch Box. What jobs will be protected in the Nottinghamshire area—the area that I represent?

Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman had a good week last week and I hope that he will not push his luck by going completely over the top this week. The substance of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is why did the document leak. The answer is that I have no idea.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is it not a fact that the East Midlands electricity board, under the chairmanship of Mr. Harris, is one of our most efficient electricity boards? Is that not because of its dependence primarily on coal? Can my hon. Friend reassure the board's members that it will be given every encouragement to produce a diversified electricity supply?

Mr. Spicer: I agree with my hon. Friend and with the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). The East Midlands electricity board is extremely efficient and a very good board. It relies largely on coal for its electricity. So far this year we have allowed £55 million worth of investment in the Nottinghamshire coal pits. Last year we allowed £73 million worth. With that investment and the increased productivity that the pits are showing, there should be a great future for coal from Nottinghamshire.

South of Scotland Electricity Board

Mr. Hood: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman the South of Scotland electricity board; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Wakeham: I have met Mr. Miller informally.

Mr. Hood: Is the Secretary of State aware that Mr. Miller, almost single handedly, has attempted over the past two years to destroy the Scottish coal industry on the altar of buying cheap imported coal from South Africa, Colombia and elsewhere? Given his fetish for nuclear power, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what discussions he intends to have with Mr. Miller on who is to buy expensive ring-fenced nuclear power?

Mr. Wakeham: These are matters for discussion with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, Mr. Miller is a very successful


chairman of the South of Scotland electricity board. The nuclear industry in Scotland does not suffer from the same disadvantages of cost that were apparent in England.

Mr. Wallace: While I am sure that Mr. Miller did not welcome the Secretary of State's announcement last week, I certainly welcome his rather belated rendezvous with reality. Will he be discussing with Mr. Miller and others responsible for the generation of electricity how the Government intend to plug the hole which must now appear in the Government's energy policy, having predicted 10 nuclear power stations in their 1979 manifesto? Will the right hon. Gentleman be increasing resources for the development of alternative fields, renewable resources and energy efficiency, and in particular reversing the cuts in his own energy efficiency office?

Mr. Wakeham: The biggest single step that any Government could take to improve energy efficiency is to complete the privatisation of the electricity supply industry because the efficient use of energy and the pressure on costs which that will produce will be the most beneficial effects of all. I am perfectly satisfied that there is sufficient capacity for the present and for the future. Substantial numbers of independent projects are coming forward and I believe that they will be highly competitive.

Energy Sources

Mr. Gerald Bowden: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what incentives there will be to develop renewable sources of energy after the reconstruction of the electricity industry.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Renewables will benefit from the non-fossil fuel obligation in general and in particular from the 600 MW of capacity that we have reserved exclusively for them. There are already clear signs that the obligation has provided a considerable encouragement to the development of renewables.

Mr. Bowden: What steps are my hon. Friend and his Department taking to encourage the exploitation of landfill gas?

Mr. Spicer: A lot is going on with regard to landfill gas. At the moment 30 landfill gas schemes are operational and a further 30 in the pipeline. Thirteen are generating electricity with a capacity of 16 MW. We expect them to generate 50 MW by 1992 and 150 to 175 MW by the year 2000. We are spending £1 million a year, and we have just produced a video explaining the considerable economic and environmental benefits of landfill gas.

Dr. Thomas: Will the Minister report progress on the plans for the construction of wind generation stations, particularly in Wales? Do the Government intend to increase the megawatt reserve for renewable sources of energy?

Mr. Spicer: So far as the non-fossil fuel obligation is concerned, we consider that the 600 MW special tranche is adequate at the moment. In future, the Secretary of State will have the power to increase that, should the need arise. Research into wind generation is a major item of expenditure. We are spending £4·5 million on wind development. We expect the wind farm in south Wales to be completed by 1990. There will be one in Cornwall in

1991 and one in the north-east by 1992. Those three experimental wind farms should be operational by those dates.

Mr. Allen: Is the Minister aware that the discovery of the cost of nuclear power did not happen last week or in the past year but has been pointed out at public inquiries into Sizewell B and elsewhere by environmentalists and those who are committed to renewable energy sources for at least a decade? Will the Minister invest the same amount of money in renewable energy sources as the Government and their predecessors have invested in their obsession with nuclear energy?

Mr. Spicer: The two are totally non-comparable and are two different items of expenditure on research. We have said quite categorically that we shall spend on renewable research what is appropriate to developing that programme as fast as is practicable in terms of market application. We are spending more than ever before on renewables and the budget is rising.

Mr. Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the principal reasons for the privatisation programme was to enable different sources of energy to have the freedom to raise the capital that they needed in the market? Does he agree that the greatest incentive for renewable energy sources is that as a result of last Thursday's announcement they will find it much easier to raise money in the market?

Mr. Spicer: I agree with all that my hon. Friend says. He rightly says that one of the advantages of privatisation and of the structure that we have set up for the industry is that it encourages renewable and other sources of energy. We have given renewable resources special protection. As there will no longer be 3 GW of PWR capacity, it will be filled by other sources, including renewables.

Severn Barrage

Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what response he will make to the general report on the Severn barrage project by the Severn barrage study group; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): Over the next two years, further work on the Severn barrage will be undertaken. This will include some site-specific environmental work and a study of the organisation and financing issues for a barrage.

Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, at an estimated 5·5p per KW hour, tidal power electricity is not yet competitive, at least in the short-term, but is environmentally much more acceptable than electricity from coal, gas, oil or nuclear sources? As it has infinite life and no decommissioning costs, it could become much more competitive. Does he therefore agree that it is the sort of project that should attract public and private funds?

Mr Morrison: I half agree with my hon. Friend. I wholeheartedly agree with him about the greenhouse effect, but I hope that he will agree that further inquiries into the environmental impact of a project of this magnitude—it would be vast—should be made. An environmental impact statement, which would cost another £5 million or £10 million, would be necessary before any further decision to go ahead could be taken.

Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that if the CEGB and the Government had not successively deceived the public about the true cost of nuclear power we would already have a range of tidal barrages around our coast producing the cheapest electricity in the world, in the same way as the power station at La Rance in France is now doing? That distortion was described in the latest statement from National Power, which said that the only reason why it planned to invest in nuclear power was the Government's privatisation proposal and the obligations under that? Will he give an assurence that local authorities in Gwent and other areas will be compensated by the Government for the money that they spent opposing the PWRs at Hinckley point and Wylfa B, because it was entirely the Government's fault that they spent it?

Mr. Morrison: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I imagine that he heard what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier in Question Time about nuclear power.

Energy Conservation

Mr. Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to encourage further the insulation of homes, offices and factories to promote the conservation of energy.

Mr. Peter Morrison: The energy efficiency office will continue to encourage the adoption of improved insulation and other energy efficiency measures through its best practice programme and other initiatives.
The promotion of energy efficiency will remain a high priority over the coming period.

Mr. Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend give fresh consideration to the need to conserve energy by better insulation of local authority housing? Will he discuss that matter with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment'? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many tenants living in cold, damp homes would benefit considerably from better insulation and better conservation of energy? Does he agree that this matter should be kept under review and discussed by his Department and the Department of the Environment?

Mr. Morrison: I assure my hon. Friend that discussions take place between the Secretaries of State for Energy and for the Environment about precisely the point that he raises. I refer my hon. Friend to the fact that community insulation projects have managed to do precisely what my hon. Friend would like for several hundred thousands households, most of which are in the public sector.

Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister agree that his reply seeks to hide the total hypocrisy of the Government on energy efficiency? Does he agree that today's news that sales of energy efficiency products have fallen by 12 per cent. in the past year compared with the previous year shows how mistaken the Government's policy is on energy efficiency? Does he agree that it is similar to the divide in the Government's policy on nuclear power, which was praised to the skies by the Prime Minister last Wednesday, buried by the Secretary of State on Thursday and resurrected by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on Friday in the debate on global warming? Nobody knows what the Government's policy is any more.

Mr. Morrison: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the Government's position. If he had read the newspapers, he would be aware of references to energy efficiency on virtually every page of every newspaper. That is entirely thanks to the Government putting it at the top of the list of priorities some time ago. Our campaign has worked successfully. That is why hundreds of thousands of people take energy efficiency far more seriously than ever before.
The hon. Gentleman will know also, if he bothers to look at the statistics, that between 1983, when the campaign started, and 1987 some £2·4 billion has been saved, thanks to the work of the energy efficiency office in making everyone aware of energy efficiency. The Government take the matter very seriously.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Hyndburn

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to pay an official visit to the constituency of Hyndburn in the county palatine.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Kenneth Baker): In my capacity as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster I have no plans to visit Hyndburn at present.

Mr. Hargreaves: That is a disappointing reply, although I realise that the last time my right hon. Friend accepted my invitation to visit Hyndburn it cost the Department for which he was then responsible a great deal of money. I ask him to reconsider his reply so that he can see how we spent the money that he allocated to us and how Government money has assisted us in creating new jobs and industry and attracting the Zeri project to Hyndburn, with 2,700 jobs in the pipeline. Will my right hon. Friend do his best to ensure that, in this new situation, services at Accrington Victoria hospital are not diminished?

Mr. Baker: As my hon. Friend well knows, I have visited Hyndburn in many capacities. I remember canvassing for him in the 1983 election, when we won the seat against the odds, and I remember supporting him in 1987. I look forward to supporting him in 1991 or 1992, when he will be returned again as the Member for Hyndburn. One reason why he will be returned is that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by some 56 per cent. over the past three years.

Mr. Pike: If the right hon. Gentleman agreed to go to Hyndburn, how would he explain to the people of Lancashire and Hyndburn the poll tax bills that they will have to pay, given that more than 70 per cent. of the people in the terraced houses in north-east Lancashire will lose considerably?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman should remember that in the first year of the community charge some £700 million will flow to those authorities in receipt of safety net money. In addition, £100 million will flow to those areas which have a low level of domestic rates and there will be £300 million in transitional relief. Many people in Lancashire will benefit from that.

Heraldry

Mr. Baldry: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has any responsibility for heraldry in the duchy.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I have no responsibility for heraldry.

Mr. Baldry: That is a great pity, because a bunch of people are wandering around the country masquerading under the red rose of Lancashire and of St. George. Should not that scandalous state of affairs be reported to the College of Arms, which could then devise a legitimate heraldic device for the group in question—a windbag rampant, perhaps?

Mr. Baker: Many people in Lancashire bitterly resent the fact that the symbol of Lancashire, the red rose, has been hijacked by the Labour party. The red rose of Lancashire is a symbol of unity, not of division, so its use in that, way is a complete charade because the Labour party has not changed its policies. Its symbol remains the red flag, as was shown by the fact that 10 days ago Labour Members stood up in the Chamber and sang it.

Duchy Land (Economic Activity)

Mr. Jack: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last reviewed the level of economic activity on lands owned by the duchy.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The level of economic activity within the Duchy of Lancaster estate is under constant review.

Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend will know from his assiduous attention to the economic activity within the county of Lancashire that that activity is under threat due to the irresponsible action by aerospace workers at the British Aerospace Strand road site in their misguided pursuit of a 35-hour week. Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning this action, which will ruin the productivity and competitiveness of one of Lancashire's most important industries?

Mr. Baker: I completely support my hon. Friend. With wage demands of that kind, one has to be aware of what will happen to the competitiveness of British industry, which has been improved enormously in the past 10 years in Lancashire, as elsewhere. In the north-west, there has been a 10·4 per cent. increase in the number of businesses since we have been in office, which has added to the prosperity of the north-west. I hope that that will not be weakened or threatened by such irresponsible claims.

Duchy Business

Mr Winnick: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the average number of hours per week he spends on the business of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: As Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I spend up to one quarter of my time carrying out my duties as a member of the Government.

Mr. Winnick: In view of the present turmoil of Tory politics, would it not be more appropriate for the right hon. Gentleman to spend more time on the affairs of the

Duchy? Does he not consider it appropriate at this stage to pluck up the courage to stand for the leadership of the Tory party? He might even win, and thank me afterwards.

Mr. Baker: I looked carefully at all the questions asked of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster over the past 10 years, and especially those asked of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) when he held the Chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster and also the chairmanship of the Tory party. I found that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) asked almost exactly the same question three years ago. He was saying that that we would not win the 1987 election, but we did. Now he is saying that we shall not win the next election, but we shall—not least because the hon. Gentleman has a very small majority and I look on the constituency of Walsall, North as a Tory gain.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

Commission Meetings

Mr. Allen: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission when the Public Accounts Commission last met; and what subjects were discussed.

Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The commission last met on 16 May when among the subjects discussed was a report by the National Audit Office auditors on accommodation arrangements at the NAO headquarters building.

Mr. Allen: Has the Chairman met Dr. Bill Jack, the new Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland, and, if so, has he discussed with him the levels of staffing and remuneration for that office? Has he had a chance yet to look at the estimates from the Public Accounts Commission?

Sir Peter Hordern: We have not yet had a chance to meet Dr. Jack since his appointment. However, we were able to meet him before then. On behalf of the House, I congratulate Dr. Jack on his appointment and also to pay tribute to his predecessor, Mr. Calvert, who bore the office of the Comptroller and Auditor-General Northern Ireland very well for nine years. The Public Accounts Commission expects to consider the estimates for next year on 12 December.

Mr. Tim Smith: What steps is the Public Accounts Commission taking to ensure that there are no unnecessary restrictions or impediments to the National Audit Office employing the best possible staff at all levels? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the Comptroller and Auditor General in particular and his staff generally are paid the proper rate for the job?

Sir Peter Hordern: The commission is satisfied that the staff of the Comptroller and Auditor General are paid at competitive rates and also have the benefit of extra earnings for merit awards. I regret to say, however, that that is not the case for the Comptroller and Auditor General himself or for the Comptroller and Auditor General Northern Ireland. We have made representations on that to the Government and propose to do so again.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Engagements

Mr. Squire: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when last he visited the county palatine; and what were his official engagements there.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) on 2 November.

Mr. Squire: Has my right hon. Friend been able to assist some of the residents of the county palatine? Has he found, as I have found in my constituency, that although people are clear about the Government's defence policies, they are thoroughly confused about the Opposition's defence policies and wholly ignorant of those of the Social Democrats?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions must have some relevance.

Mr. Baker: I am not at all surprised at that——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That topic is way beyond the scope of the question.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: When the Chancellor is next in Lancashire, will he consider the appointment of justices of the peace? Does he accept that justices of the peace in the whole of the area for which he is responsible show a preponderance of people from middle-class and Right-wing backgrounds, rather than a good balance across the community? The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor gave a clear commitment in the House to ensure that more JPs came from working-class backgrounds within the area for which he was responsible. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that that commitment is carried out?

Mr. Baker: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's criticism, because it is unfair. That aspect of my responsibilities is important. I presided at a magistrates meeting in the Wirral and I am anxious that people appointed to the honourable and important role of justice of the peace represent broad bands of society. I make every effort to ensure that that is the case, as do my advisers.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Archbishop of Canterbury (Rome Visit)

Mr. Summerson: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what was the cost to the Commissioners of the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent visit to Rome.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioners, Representing Church Commissioners): The archbishop's expenses are reimbursed by the Church Commissioners on a quarterly basis. No claim has yet been made in respect of the period in question, but the archbishop's private office was kind enough to tell me informally, in advance of submitting a claim, that the cost was in the region of £8,500.

Mr. Summerson: As one of the results of the archbishop's visit to Rome was to give comfort to those

whose activities will cause schisms in the Church of England, will my right hon. Friend consider giving similar resources to those who oppose those activities?

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend singles out just one of the matters that divide the Church of England and the Church of Rome. Many sections of the Church of England have expressed gratitude and received encouragement as a result of the archbishop's visit to the Pope.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Televising of Parliament

Mr. Allen: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will take steps to allow hon. Members to have the same facility as some outside organisations in receiving the televised picture of the Chamber in their own offices.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): No, Sir.

Mr. Allen: The Lord President will be aware that more than 40 organisations outside the House will be able to receive the live television pictures, including South African television, Israeli television and Government Departments. At this very moment, Mr. Bernard Ingham—he who must be relayed—may well be receiving the television picture live. For all we know, he may be whispering into the Lord President's ear a startling and direct reply to my question. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman prepared to extend the facility to hon. Members in their offices?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is essentially a matter not for me but for the House. Sound broadcasting access is accorded to several organisations outside the House and to certain Departments of State. It has been decided that the television feed should be similarly available to those organisations and people. The Select Committee on Broadcasting and subsequently the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House decided that no such facilities should be provided for hon. Members, save in the Lobbies. The reasons given were, first, that it would be expensive—perhaps not the most important reason—secondly, that it would be intrusive to hon. Members who share rooms and, thirdly and most importantly, that it would diminish the likelihood of hon. Members being present in the Chamber. The latter reason impressed the Select Committee and that is how the matter stands.

Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion would be a bad idea because, as my right hon. and learned Friend inferred, it would keep hon. Members away from the Chamber? The House has consistently avoided sound radio broadcasting of the proceedings in hon. Members' offices for just that reason. However, as hon. Members in various parts of the House will need to see what is happening in the Chamber, would it not be a good idea for my right hon. and learned Friend to discuss with the House authorities the provision of an adequate number of monitors in various locations?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I suspect that the provision of monitors may have the same effect, although on a smaller scale as provision in hon. Members' rooms. The Select


Committee may consider the matter again in the future, but it was unanimous in recommending against provision of facilities beyond those currently available.

Dr. Cunningham: Will the Lord President of the Council keep an open mind on the matter? Why should we not review it at the end of the experimental period? Is it not rather curious that we are to provide the facility for people in the media and others—who, for all I know, may include press officers in Government Departments—but deny it to hon. Members? Can we not consider the matter again when the experiment is over?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Both the hon. Gentleman and I will have to keep an open mind because we serve on the Select Committee which will be reviewing developments in the months ahead. The matter was considered by the Select Committee, which reached a unanimous conclusion. The burden of proof in the opposite direction must therefore be discharged.

Mr. Butler: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that if Sky Television provides full coverage of the House, as it intends to do, hon. Members will be able to provide facilities in their offices for themselves?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure that the technicalities would allow that. The matter would have to be considered by the Select Committee in the light of developments.

Mr. Wallace: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reflect on the fact that, from next Tuesday, the many organisations that will have access to our televised proceedings, will be able to witness the trivial banter that we have just heard, which is known as questions to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reflect on the question rota, bearing in mind the fact that we have to go through that exercise but have no opportunity to address questions to Scottish Law Officers?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall certainly consider that matter with the seriousness that it deserves, but I repudiate absolutely the allegation that viewers would be unimpressed by the splendid performance of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Members' Staff (Contracts)

Mr. Rooker: To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects the circular reminding right hon. and hon. Members about the need to provide contracts of employment to the Fees Office in respect of staff to be issued.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Accountant hopes to issue reminder letters to Members later this month.

Mr. Rooker: Will the Lord President confirm that staff employed by hon. Members and paid by the Fees Office are supposed to have contracts of employment lodged with the Fees Office but that on 30 June this year only 709 of the 1,287 staff paid by the Fees Office and employed by hon. Members had such contracts lodged? That is simply not on. Hon. Members are not famed for being good employers and I hope that the Lord President will pursue the matter after the issue of the circular to make sure that the laggards toe the line and become decent employers.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The number of hon. Members who have complied is broadly in line with the figure given by the hon. Gentleman. He is right that the relevant resolution of the House passed on 21 July 1987 makes arrangements requiring a statement to be lodged by hon. Members who use the Fees Office to pay their staff. That followed the recommendation of the Top Salaries Review Body some time before. The fact that a reminder letter is to be issued later this month shows that the matter is being taken seriously.

Mr. Squire: The news that the Lord President has just given will be greeted with some concern. Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the omissions include staff employed for longer than two or three years? If so, does he agree that that is all the more scandalous?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: In general terms, the documents have been lodged more regularly on behalf of newly employed staff because both employer and employee have been made familiar with the requirement at the start of the contract period, whereas the obligation has not been complied with significantly in respect of longer-serving staff who may well have been accustomed to operating in a more informal world. That is the reason for the difference in the figures.

Press and Public Relations

Winnick: To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the average annual expenditure of his office on press and public relations.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Privy Council Office has no budget allocated specifically to press and public relations, and employs no press or information staff. A very small proportion of the office's staffing and administration costs arises from the handling of such matters but it could not be accurately quantified.

Mr. Winnick: Does the Lord President consider that if he had more to spend on press and publicity he would be on a more equal footing with Mr. Ingham, who is increasingly being seen as the real deputy Prime Minister?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is joining the modest band of those obsessed with that proposition. I invite him to repudiate his obsession.

Division Bells

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he will review the procedures for testing Division Bells.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: No. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave him on 24 October. I am not aware of any general concern over our current Division Bell testing procedure.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. and learned Friend see what he can do to avoid the disturbance created by testing the Division Bells at 9 o'clock every morning when hon. Members are at their desks trying to work and make telephone calls? What is the statistical justification for testing the Division Bells every day? Could not the engineers test them just as well at 2.30 pm as at 9 am?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The habit of testing the Division Bells by this physical means has been in place for a long


time. It has been found to be convenient for that relatively unadvanced piece of technology. It seems to work satisfactorily and it does not disturb as many hon. Members at 9 am as it might later in the day. My hon. Friend is among a relatively small minority of hon. Members to be found on the premises complaining about the early testing of the alarm systems.

Mr. Bernard Ingham

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Lord President of the Council what steps he is taking to improve facilities in the House for the Prime Minister's press secretary.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: None, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: As one of the House of Common's best remembered Law Officers, does the Lord President think it proper that we should give House room to a civil servant whom Leon Brittan tells us behaved totally improperly in the matter of the Law Officer's letter—unless, that is, the Prime Minister on 27 January did something which, were I to name it, would lead to my being suspended for 20 days?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is the only hon. Member who continues to have that particular obsession, although the House may be glad that it has replaced the Belgrano in his mind. I invite him to give up this obsession as decisively as he gave up the other.

Animal Feed (Lead Contamination)

Dr. David Clark: (by private notice): To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on lead in milk and meat following the discovery of lead in cattle feed.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): A consignment of rice bran was contaminated during its transport from Burma. On its arrival in Belgium the unfit cargo was not destroyed, but sold on and reprocessed into animal feed. The Dutch embassy informed the Ministry's legal department on Wednesday 1 November of a specific consignment thought to be contaminated and delivered to two companies based in Teignmouth and Liverpool. By this time, our own veterinary investigation service had identified from its own investigations a connection between cattle deaths and lead contamination in animal feed.
As soon as my Department learned that contaminated animal feed had been distributed to farms in this country, it took urgent steps to trace the suppliers, merchants and compounders and used their customer lists to warn the farmers concerned. It stopped the movement from these farms of animals and foodstuffs which might have been affected and arranged with the Milk Marketing Board for the segregation of the milk. These voluntary arrangements were confirmed by order under part I of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.
The European Commission was also contacted to request urgent investigation of the possibility that this incident was the result of criminal activities in another member state. Throughout all this we have worked closely with the Department of Health. It confirms that, on present evidence, even in the worst case of the maximum possible intake of lead and other metals from this incident, there has been no hazard to human health.
I pay tribute to the staff of the Ministry and the Milk Marketing Board, who have handled the massive task of dealing with the 1,500 or more farms concerned and who are now involved in the testing procedure through which we can continue to protect human health and begin to de-restrict farms. I am sure we all recognise the very severe effects that these strong measures have on the farmers involved. They have shown considerable co-operation and I am sure that they will realise that these restrictions must continue to be maintained as long as is necessary to safeguard the health of the public.

Dr. Clark: We on this side of the House approve of the Government's decision to impose restrictions. First, will the Minister explain why, having been alerted by the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture on 1 November to the presence of the lead-contaminated cattle feed in Britain, he waited five days, until 6 November, before imposing restrictions? Why did the Minister not issue a precautionary notice to farmers warning them of the possibility of contamination and asking them to withhold the cattle feed, thus avoiding unnecessary cattle deaths and preventing potentially hazardous milk from entering the food chain?
Secondly, has the Minister seen the report in The Sunday Times that the Milk Marketing Board was not informed of the seriousness of the problem until 5 November—four days afterwards? Why was there that

delay? Why did the Minister wait not five but 10 days before commencing the testing of meat for lead? As he knows, it is a potentially dangerous by-product.
I associate the Opposition with the sterling work done by the Ministry officials and the vets. Does the Minister recall informing me in a parliamentary answer that, in the past 10 years, the state veterinary service has been cut by 25 per cent? Will he now reverse that process as a first step to improving our ability to respond to food emergencies such as the one now on our hands?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that most hon. Members would feel that this subject should not be drawn into party political debate, and particularly by armchair critics. On the speed of response, I would prefer to listen to the views put forward by local people. One of the south-west regional chairmen of the National Farmers Union wrote to me yesterday. He said:
I congratulate you and your staff on the superb reaction to the crisis. I know that Ministry staff and NFU staff have worked all hours since the issue broke and that there has been close co-operation throughout".
That is a fairer statement of what happened.
It will immediately appear to all hon. Members that it would be impossible to ask all farmers to withhold their cattle feed. To suggest that all cattle feed should be withheld because a specific consignment of cattle feed——

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Minister said—[Interruption.]

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) should listen to what his party says. He obviously does not listen to what the Government say.
The most important thing to do was precisely what the Ministry did. It had specific information, it followed up that specific information as fast as was humanly possible, and it made sure that a good deal of the feed did not go out. Much of the rest was recovered, and the farmers were informed so that they did not move cattle or milk from their premises.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) must accept that we brought in the Milk Marketing Board at the very point at which we were able to segregate the milk, which we did on Sunday; that was perfectly proper, and that was the order in which we should have done it. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead people, so I am quite happy for him to go through the details. The hon. Member for Workington always tries to make party political points out of these matters, and enjoys doing so, so I will not listen to him. His hon. Friend the Member for South Shields is a much more decent person and he knows the facts in these matters.
May I explain why we did not test meat earlier? We felt that it was necessary to do things in a proper order. The milk was obviously the biggest and most important matter. Once we had stopped material moving off the farms, it seemed that the first priority was to deal with that product which is in large quantities and which causes considerable storage problems. Therefore, the first thing to do was to test it. Of course, we could not allow any to leave the farms. One must have tests over a period before it is possible to declare that the milk is fit to go back into public supply.
On the testing of meat for lead, the first thing to do is to make sure that there is a proper test to cover not only lead but anything else that might be available, because lead is an impure metal. That is the order in which scientists


advised us to do it. We feel that that is the right order, and the farmers certainly feel that that is the right order. No animals are leaving the farms, so there can be no threat to public health. That is the right thing to do. I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's argument because no one, apart from himself, thinks that that is the wong way to do it.
I gladly welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about the vets. One of the reasons they were able to do the job so well is because of the efficient reorganisation of the state veterinary service which has been carried out over the past 10 years.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: May I say how glad I am that my right hon. Friend has twice visited the area concerned and, I believe, the Starcross veterinary inspection centre in my constituency, which has played a leading part in controlling this imported menace, rather than just sitting in his Department in London and waiting for other people to report to him? That is very much appreciated. May I ask him whether it is not possible to supply the actual figures to farmers who want to know the degree of lead contamination so that they and their general practitioners can make an informed judgment as to whether their families are at risk, who have been drinking the milk concerned?

Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I had hoped to make such a visit today—indeed, I was on the train today ready to make a further visit down to the south-west but had to return to the House to respond to this important question. I am sure that my hon. Friend will remind his farmers of the statement by the chief medical officer, who said clearly that there was no need for their families to be worried, on the evidence that we have. I do not want anybody to be worried in that way.
However, I have not made that my first priority. My first priority has been to test and to re-test where early tests show that the level of lead in the milk is low. That has enabled such milk to come back into the system, and we have so far allowed 10 farms to do that. The second priority is obviously to test those farms that have not been tested before.
Greater than either of those priorities would be circumstances in which the figures suggested a particular danger on a particular farm. However, there is no such evidence at the moment and those farmers need not be concerned. Without holding up the other testing arrangements, I am making arrangements so that, as soon as is practical, we can provide those figures for each farm. I shall, of course, ensure that the confidentiality of the figures will be as one would want; otherwise, the farmers might be less than happy.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Since the lead in the animal feed was present in sufficient concentration to cause the deaths of about 30 cattle, thousands of calves and cows must have sub-lethal concentrations of lead in their meat and bones. What will the Government do about that? Will they allow and pay for the slaughter of those lead-contaminated cattle to prevent that lead-contaminated beef from getting into the food chain?

Mr. Gummer: The Government will certainly prevent that material from getting into the food chain if there is any danger to the health of the public. That is first and foremost. We will make decisions about what we have to

do when we have done the testing and know the extent of the problem and the issues involved. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there can be circumstances in which lead poisoning gradually diminishes, out of the animal altogether——

Mr. Williams: Very slowly.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman may not know this, but it is the advice of the state veterinary service. That is what happens. I am in the business of using the scientific advice available to us as much as possible; and not of frightening people unnecessarily, while always warning them. On no occasion have any circumstances arisen in which the public has not had all the details, to such an extent that every test result given on all the milk during the past few days has been given out to the public so that people know exactly what is happening, and I shall continue to do that.

Mr. Roger Knapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the wild allegations by the Opposition Members on this issue show that they are the enemy not only of the food industry but of the farming industry also, and of all who work in them?

Mr. Gummer: It is important to say that the public's health comes before anything else. If I am unhappy about one or two of the wilder statements that have been made, it is simply because, by suggesting things that are not true, those doing so are worrying people in circumstances in which they need not be worried, and those who have worked so hard to protect the public may feel that they are being snubbed by some hon. Members.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Given the existing pressures on farm incomes in many sectors of the agricultural community, does the Minister think that, as a result of this latest problem, the Government might take any steps to compensate those farmers who will incur financial loss as a result of the very necessary restrictions that his Department has sought to impose in this case? The Minister referred to the possibility of the involvement of some criminal organisation in Europe, and as there was press speculation over the weekend, perhaps completely unfair to the Minister, which said that that might have been a smokescreen, has the right hon. Gentleman received any further information from the Commission about its investigations?

Mr. Gummer: On the first question, I have been in touch with the National Farmers Union and I know that Sir Simon Gourlay takes exactly the same view as I have stated publicly—that this is a matter for the courts and not one for compensation. I want to help the farmers as much as possible and, through our legal department and with the NFU and others, I am trying to see how best this matter can be dealt with. We shall, of course, keep farmers in touch with what is happening in Holland and the rest of Europe.
I believe that the only press speculation to which the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) refers was a comment by the hon. Member for South Shields, the spokesman on agriculture for the Labour party. He suggested—I thought unfortunately, as the facts are exactly opposite—that there was a smokescreen. It is extremely difficult to believe that someone could accidentally turn into cattle feed a


substance that was so badly contaminated that it was of a different colour from what it should have been. If that is the case, I cannot believe that it was done by, as someone suggested, a silly accident. That would take a great deal of believing.
From the court transcripts of the first case that has taken place in Holland, I understand that the firm that originally bought this feed and brought it into Antwerp has stated that, on no less than three occasions, it telexed the firm that had been paid to take the feed away and to destroy it to say that that feed was contaminated and had to be destroyed.
There is hardly a question mark as to whether the act was done criminally; the question is who did it, when, and how soon there will be a prosecution.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is an Opposition half day. I shall allow two more questions to be put from each side and then we must move on.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: My right hon. Friend will know that my constituency has been affected by the sales of the contaminated foodstuff. My constituents have asked me to pass on to my right hon. Friend their appreciation and thanks for the prompt action that he took and for the courtesy and thoroughness of his officials, with which I am glad to concur. We have a problem in south Derbyshire about contaminated meat. Will my right hon. Friend reassure us about how the carcases will be disposed of so that they cannot enter the human food chain inadvertently?

Mr. Gummer: Those animals that have died from lead poisoning and those that tests are likely to reveal have died from such poisoning will either be buried or incinerated. There is no question of that meat getting into the human food chain. I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words on this matter; she, of all people, knows how important it is.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister agree with the policy adviser to the NFU who has said that there is already an established trade in contaminated feed? When the right hon. Gentleman says that I am being political, does he understand that I have sat here on four occasions in recent years and today, when we discussed Chernobyl, bovine spongiform encephalopathy and listeria, and have witnessed clear delay from Departments when dealing with those matters? That was especially true of Chernobyl, when I was told at the Dispatch Box——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Keep to this statement, please.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Three years they waited.

Mr. Gummer: As the hon. Gentleman uses those three examples, which are not directly involved with this matter, he might know that we were the first Government to warn people about listeria. How that can be described as delay I do not know. As I understand it, we are still the only Government in western Europe who have warned people about that disease.
Our record stands supreme on Chernobyl. As I said to the hon. Gentleman before, I was happy for my wife, who was then carrying one of our children, to eat that lamb and I am still happy that I said that it was safe, because it was. I continue to believe that that is so. I have taken measures on BSE that are tougher than those recommended by scientists. No Government would have taken measures as tough as our own, because we put food safety first. The hon. Gentleman is wrong on those three examples, and he is wrong in this case. We take the view that feed should not be contaminated; that is why we have taken measures as tough as this. If the hon. Gentleman cared about food safety, instead of being interested only in party politics, he would be quiet a bit more often.

Mr. Barry Field: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the speed with which his officials met the danger shows that there is absolutely no need for an independent body to be set up to consider food safety, and that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has discharged its responsibilities in an excellent way?

Mr. Gummer: I disagree with my hon. Friend, because I think that we are the independent body on food safety. That must be so, because our first and primary interest is the protection of the public. Nobody could have moved as fast as we were able to move except a Ministry which was responsible for both food and farming.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: What are the levels of lead in the British food chain? When does the Minister expect to get rid of those levels?

Mr. Gummer: I do not think the hon. Gentleman can have thought of his question before he got up to speak, because the average level of lead in the food chain is so small as not to be measurable. The question we are interested in is whether the level of lead at any part of the food chain is dangerous to public health. The Department of Health has made it clear that no one need have any worry on that account.

East Germany

Sir Russell Johnston: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
The implications of this weekend's events in East Germany for Britain's foreign and European policy.
I know that these are dull words, particularly when it has been a weekend of such extraordinary hope and excitement. To watch on one's television screens great engines tearing holes in the Berlin wall was for me an extraordinary experience. For me it was a wondrous sight to watch people flooding through the gaps where previously they would have feared a bullet in the back. We cannot let such an event pass and not respond to it.
I did my national service in Berlin long ago, before the wall was built. I have visited the city many times since and I identify—as we all should in this free Parliament—with what has been the most dramatic and marvellous demonstration of the power of free thought that we have seen since the war.
Yesterday, like most hon. Members—and like you Mr. Speaker—I marched in a Remembrance day parade. I remembered my father telling me about the bloody days in the trenches in Flanders. I recalled the doctor from the wee village on Skye in which I was brought up, whose job it was to attend Heinrich Himmler after his suicide. I remembered also my friends in Berlin and the troubles that they had had. I remembered that they were throwing off a new tyranny and that we were seeing the birth of an optimism that I—and I am sure many other hon. Members—have never known.
We all make banal speeches about historic moments but this is a real, tangible and marvellous historical moment and we should not let it pass. We should debate the matter and celebrate with our German friends the possibility of a new and far better future. That is my case.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
The implications of this weekend's events in East Germany for Britain's foreign and European policy.
I do not in any way under-estimate the importance of what the hon. Gentleman has said or of the momentous events unfolding in Europe. However, as he knows, I have to decide whether his application comes within the terms of the Standing Order and, if so, whether a debate should be given priority over the business already set down for this evening or tomorrow. In this case, the matter he has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order and I regret that I cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am looking for your assistance. At a time when the Berlin wall is being reduced to rubble, the

iron curtain is melting before our eyes and the most momentous events for over 40 years are taking place in our continent, it appears that the Opposition believe that the most important action for the House to take is to debate events in Cambodia. Every newspaper and television channel in this country is debating these momentous events, yet we——

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me?

Mr. Marlow: The point of order for you, Mr. Speaker, is that we in this democratic assembly in the United Kingdom are being asked by the Opposition to debate events in Cambodia when the European Commission and everybody else in this country are debating the momentous events in eastern Europe, central Europe and our continent. I call upon you, Mr. Speaker, as a representative of this House, to use what influence you have to ensure that we debate the real and important issues which face the future of our continent and our country rather than faraway issues of half a continent away.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. I fully appreciate what he has said about the great importance of these events. There will, perhaps, be an opportunity to dwell on them in next Wednesday's debate on developments in the European Community.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to put this on record firmly and squarely, because what has just been said is a disgrace to your office. Would you confirm that, while the map of Europe is being redrawn this weekend—I concur wholly with what was said earlier by the representative of the Liberal party, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston)—nevertheless, it is open to the Government to move to suspend the debate between 7 and 10 pm tonight? Therefore, instead of debating £500,000 of ratepayers' money which is to be spent on a road race Bill, we could debate the momentous events in eastern Europe.

Mr. Speaker: This is an Opposition day——

Mr. Rooker: Take off the Private business.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means who put it down.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on events which took place over the weekend. You may well have read a series of newspaper articles involving the brother of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that in this Chamber we do not need to involve individuals in arguments of that kind. This is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. MacKay: Mr. Speaker, you have not heard me.

Mr. Speaker: I have not heard what the hon. Member has to say, but I can sense it.

Mr. MacKay: I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, are mistaken. I was going on to say that I thought that those articles were full of unworthy innuendoes towards the hon. Member for Bolsover. In order to clear his name, I sought your guidance as to whether the articles constituted a breach of privilege and should be referred to the Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman alleges that, he should write to me in the usual way.

Mr. Barry Field: Further to my point of order of Friday morning, Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek your guidance. As the champion of the rights of Back Benchers, for which you are justifiably revered, could you advise the House how it was possible for discussions to take place on the private business of this House—the Isle of Wight Bill—on the Adjournment of the House without involving me? The Social and Liberal Democrats were not present throughout the whole of that debate, despite the fact that they control the Isle of Wight county council. Could you say whether, if they had been present, they would have been entitled, as a minority party, to participate in the negotiations, and possibly have saved the Bill?

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not in any way responsible for what may go on in private discussions outside the Chamber. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern that a large number of private Bills are currently held up. In procedural terms, nothing out of order has taken place.

Mr. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm that a perfectly good report by the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure is before the House and that, if the House implemented it quickly, many problems to do with private business could be resolved?

Mr. Speaker: I can confirm that. I also heard—I hope the hon. Gentleman and the House heard it too—the Leader of the House say at business questions last Thursday that he intended to look into the matter urgently and would seek to deal with it.

Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the guardian of the liberties and privileges of the House, you have often made it clear that it is precisely because those privileges have been so long fought for that they should be used rarely and for good reason. I was therefore delighted by what you said earlier this afternoon, and I take it that when hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), try to smear people outside the House under the power of privilege, you will call them up short. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) made was fair——

Mr. Skinner: I do not use privilege for protection.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the reputation of the House is in any way enhanced by drawing attention to matters of that kind.

Opposition Day

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY] [SECOND PART]

Cambodia

Mr. Speaker: I must announce that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I beg to move,
That this House records its profound concern at the continuing tragedy of Cambodia; calls on Her Majesty's Government not to sponsor any resolution at the United Nations which directly or indirectly gives support or comfort to the Khmer Rouge or its allies, and in the debate in the General Assembly on Wednesday to repudiate specifically Thiounn Prasith of the Khmer Rouge as delegate of Cambodia; insists that the Government provides clear answers to allegations that British military personnel have been providing training for forces fighting alongside Khmer Rouge forces, and ends forthwith any such training; believes that no aid other than humanitarian aid should be provided for any group or objective in Cambodia; and asks that such aid be increased substantially.
The intervention earlier by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who I notice has sloped off after making it, brought great discredit on him and on anyone who agreed with him. I am second to none in my praise for and excitement about what is taking place in East Germany and Berlin today. I was there yesterday and was able to see something of it for myself. But the tragedy of Cambodia, a country in which up to 2 million people were slaughtered in the most appalling way by a regime of profound inhumanity, is a matter which the House is right to debate—especially since, on Wednesday this week, the United Nations General Assembly is to debate Cambodia. The Opposition have used the time available to them so that the House can state its views on this agonising issue before the United Nations debate.

Sir Russell Johnston: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is not saying that I was trying to change the debate on Cambodia—we could well have debated East Germany tomorrow.

Mr. Kaufman: I fully accept that. I know, from his presence here, that the hon. Gentleman cares about this issue.
Not only do we believe that two days before the United Nations debates Cambodia the House should discuss it, but we believe that the time has come for the United Kingdom Government to reassess and fundamentally to change their policy towards Cambodia. Throughout the world Cambodia has become a symbol of all that is most savage and unacceptable in the conduct of political relations and military activity; it is now a synonym for the depths of inhumanity to which those who wield power can descend in their maltreatment of the people whose lives they control.
The murder, torture and suppression of human rights and freedom associated with the name of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge can be compared in scale and horror only to Adolf Hitler's holocaust. It is easy for everyone, including the British Government, to say that the Khmer Rouge must never return to power in Cambodia, but


unless there is a total change in policy towards Cambodia by our Government and by other nations there is a real danger that the Khmer Rouge will return to power there. Those armies are dominated by the Khmer Rouge and are fighting their way into Cambodia. Unless they are halted, they may overturn the Government of Cambodia, the Government of Hun Sen.
The allegedly acceptable face of those armies is Prince Sihanouk, the perpetual prince over the water of Cambodia. The largest part of those armies belongs to the Khmer Rouge. Sihanouk's so-called Democratic Coalition is dominated by the Khmer Rouge. Last month The Independent said:
All the CGDK declarations, including Prince Sihanouk's recent five-point peace plan, are written by the Khmer Rouge, and simply presented to Sihanouk and the KPNLF leader Son Sann, to sign.
The coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea— so-called—has as its diplomatic representatives people who in number and importance are dominated by the Khmer Rouge. For example, the so-called Foreign Minister of that coalition was Head of State during Pol Pot's rule in Cambodia.
The British Government are playing an active part in assisting the armies that are dominated by the Khmer Rouge and in seeking to remove from power in Cambodia the Hun Sen regime that is today that country's legal and de facto Government. The rationale of those policies is that Hun Sen was placed in power by Vietnamese forces. There is truth in that, but whatever may be said against the Vietnamese it must be said in their favour that they drove out Pol Pot. It must also be said that the removal of Pol Pot by the Vietnamese has counted less with the United States Administration than the fact that it was the Vietnamese who removed him.
Because Vietnam inflicted on the United States the most humiliating defeat on the battlefield that the Americans had ever suffered, United States policy has been dominated by the compulsion to oppose anything with which the Vietnamese are associated. That is a foolish and dangerous motivation to govern the foreign policy of any great power. It is especially regrettable in the case of the United States which, under President Bush, has in many areas made changes in foreign policy that are beneficial and admirable. One can cite the change in policy towards the middle east and in arming the Contras and the way in which the Americans are enhancing the Reagan initiatives in negotiation with the Soviet Union on nuclear disarmament. It is particularly regrettable that on this issue the Bush Administration are continuing the vindictive policies of the Reagan Administration towards Cambodia.
In the case of Cambodia, the United States motivation has led to a profoundly wrong policy, not only on the part of the Americans but by other countries. Taking into account the situation since the Tiananmen square massacre, it is deplorable and even ugly that the policy of the United States and that of China towards Cambodia should be the same. It is an unholy alliance because of the shared loathing by both countries of Vietnam.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Has my right hon. Friend seen the absolutely amazing and excellent article by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)? It states:
The main difference is that the Americans killed thousands of Cambodian civilians in their attempts to destroy

North Vietnamese supply lines whereas the Vietnamese invasion ended the systematic murder of Cambodians by their own 'government'.

Mr. Kaufman: Yes, I have seen that article. I thought that it was an outstanding contribution to the discussion, and I am only sorry that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), no doubt because of other pressing engagements, cannot be here to express the same sentiments.
That would be particularly valuable because while the United States and China are at one in opposing a sensible solution for Cambodia, other Governments have allowed themselves to be dragged along by the White House and the State Department. I am sorry to say that the British Government are one of those Governments.
The extent to which British Government policy is dictated by the State Department can best be gauged from a speech on Cambodia made in the House on 21 January last year by the former Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar). I reread that speech at the weekend. After nearly two years and in the light of changing events, I found it deeply obnoxious. Speaking of the Hun Sen regime, he said:
Without the presence of massive Vietnamese forces, the regime simply would not exist.
The Vietnamese forces have been withdrawn from Cambodia and the regime still exists. The hon. Gentleman continued, in squalid and sneering language:
We cannot accept that at this time we should give development assistance to a regime which depends for its very existence on Vietnamese occupying forces. We cannot allow Vietnam to bankroll its oppression of Cambodia with western aid."—[Official Report, 21 January 1988; Vol. 125, col. 1225.]
The Vietnamese forces are gone, but for Cambodia there is still no British development assistance and still no western aid. To justify this, the Government have now changed their rationale. Last month, the Minister for Overseas Development said:
We remain convinced that our policy of not offering direct Government to Government aid to the Heng Samrin regime in Phnom Penh is right in present circumstances. We have no wish to sustain an unrepresentative regime spawned by the illegal Vietnemese occupation.
Once again, Vietnam, rather than the needs and the plight of Cambodia, is dominating Government policy.
Let us be clear. The suffering people of Cambodia are being punished for the American defeat in Vietnam. Led by the United States, with Britain as a compliant follower, the world community has blacklisted Cambodia. The result for that poverty-stricken land has been not only terrible suffering but a reverse in the progress that was being made in combating disease and deprivation. Children are dying in Cambodia from diarrhoea and other diseases in terrifying numbers. They die, among other reasons, because of the dreadful state of the water supply. Aid could help to improve the water supply yet, inexcusably, Cambodia is the only country in the world to be denied United Nations development aid.
In a recent leading article, The Times said:
Now that that invasion"——
the Vietnamese invasion—
is at an end—so long as it is not perpetuated by proxy—there is no reason why generous aid for humanitarian projects or to assist Vietnam's incipient economic reform should not begin.
The Times is right in its argument, but mistaken in its conclusion, because there is, unfortunately, a valid reason why such aid is not provided by the United Nations. It is


because Cambodia is represented at the United Nations not by the Government who hold power but by the exiled opposition, the so-called coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea. The United Nations delegate of that bogus organisation, Thiounn Prasith, was a close adviser of Pol Pot during his years in Government, and is still a crony of Pol Pot's.
An avowed representative of the Khmer Rouge has been put into the United Nations by other countries as the representative of Cambodia, when he does not represent Cambodia at all. His presence at the United Nations misrepresents Cambodia but gives an international validity to the Khmer Rouge and allows it to influence United Nations policy and international attitudes to Cambodia.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in addition to his being a member of the Khmer Rouge, three of Thiounn Prasith's brothers held three of the 10 posts in the Pol Pot regime's Government between 1975 and 1979? That family above all is connected with what happened at that time.

Mr. Kaufman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for placing that on the record. He, like others of my right hon. and hon. Friends, has a long, honourable and constructive record of fighting on this issue.
In a curious and opaque written answer to a question tabled by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) last week, the Foreign Secretary—the right hon. Gentleman has explained to me why he cannot be here today—stated:
The report of the UN credentials committee again recommended acceptance of credentials of Democratic Kampuchea for the Cambodian seat and was approved without a vote."—[Official Report, 8 November 1989; Vol. 159, c. 645.]
The Foreign Secretary did not explain why there was no vote. He did not explain why the British Government did not vote against the seating of a Pol Pot crony as a representative of Cambodia at the United Nations. I regret to say that the Government have an odd and equivocal attitude towards the Khmer Rouge. The Prime Minister and others assert that they never wish to see Pol Pot back in power in Cambodia, but it is deplorable that the Government are shifting in their attitude towards the Khmer Rouge.
Last year, during a television interview, the Prime Minister was asked about the Khmer Rouge. The right hon. Lady stated:
There is a much more reasonable grouping within the Khmer Rouge.
When asked to amplify that statement, she said:
That is what I am assured by people who know, so that you will find that the more reasonable ones in the Khmer Rouge will have to play some part in a future Government.
It is a matter for concern to us all to discover who these "reasonable" ones in the Khmer Rouge, as cited by the Prime Minister, may be.
In a television programme two weeks ago—a programme which produced an enormous response from the public, as every hon. Member knows from his or her postbag—John Pilger tried to find the answer to the question that must follow the Prime Minister's statement. He put the question to the responsible Minister from the

Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Lord Brabazon of Tara. In a singular and bizarre interview, Lord Brabazon replied,
I don't know their names.
He continued:
Well, there are obviously some more reasonable than others.
He could not say who they are. All the same, the Government continued to recommend that the Khmer Rouge should be included in the Cambodian Government.
A Foreign and Commonwealth Office briefing document reads:
To exclude the Khmer Rouge completely from the transitional process could have the effect that we all want to avoid. It might drive their still powerful army into guerrrilla warfare.
Where are these people living? The "still powerful army" of the Khmer Rouge is involved in guerrilla warfare. It is involved in the invasion of Cambodia from Thailand. It dominates the armies that are invading Cambodia. The Government continue to say, however, that the Khmer Rouge should be part of Cambodia's Government.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: My right hon. Friend presents a powerful indictment of the Government. Does he recall that last week I asked the Prime Minister whether she felt happy that the Foreign Secretary was sitting next to Pol Pot representatives, and that the right hon. Lady refused to answer?

Mr. Kaufman: I well recall that intervention by my hon. Friend, because I thought that the Prime Minister would try to respond to the valid and important point he raised. But instead, she made a cheap joke which demonstrated once again, as did the intervention by the hon. Member for Northampton, North before today's debate began, that the killing, suffering, ordeal and plight of Cambodia matter little to some members of the Government and to the Conservative party.
The latest pronouncement on the subject was made on 1 November by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), who I understand is to speak next, when he replied to an Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for Broxtowe. In that notorious speech, the Minister announced:
I have only two minutes to devote to Cambodia.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): Before this becomes a legend—the hon. Member for Cynon Valley, (Mrs. Clwyd) will remember this—the right hon. Gentleman will recall that there are 30 minutes for Adjournment debates. My hon. Friend the member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) spoke for his full time and then there was an intervention from the hon. Member for Cynon Valley leaving me only four minutes in which to reply.

Mr. Kaufman: I read the debate in full. I recognise that the Minister had little enough time to reply, but instead of reading from his brief, he might have rejigged his speech to deal with what is a paramount issue in the House.

Mr. Jim Lester: It is very unfair for the right hon. Gentleman to charge my hon. Friend the Minister with any discourtesy. He tried enormously hard in a very short time to fulfil his requirement. My hon. Friend had flown in from Washington the night before. In those circumstances, the hon. Member for Cynon Valley


(Mrs. Clwyd) and I felt that it was more important to get on record our concerns than to get a reply which I hope we shall get today.

Mr. Kaufman: Obviously I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but I quote what the Minister said in the two minutes that he was able to devote to the subject. He said:
Absorption of some part of the Khmer Rouge movement might diminish the power of the rest of the movement".
He went on to advocate
the attempt to include some part of the Khmer Rouge movement—but not the Pol Pot supporters—in a future Government."—[Official Report, 1 November 1989; Vol. 159, c. 444.]
So in his two minutes the Minister managed to cram in a recommendation that the Khmer Rouge should be part of the Cambodian Government.
What it all comes back to is that the Government, without the Prime Minister or any other Minister being able to specify or name those reasonable members of the Khmer Rouge, are ready to advocate Khmer Rouge membership of a Cambodian Government. Let us be clear that their objective is to get rid of the present Cambodian Government. Their explanation is simple—they claim that that Government are in power only because they are propped up by Vietnamese forces. There are no Vietnamese troops in Cambodia, yet there are Khmer Rouge troops, who the Foreign and Commonwealth Office readily admits are a powerful army and whose flag flies at the United Nations because no country opposes the Khmer Rouge delegate there and because each year Britain and other countries support the continued efforts of the Khmer Rouge and its allies to take over power in Cambodia.
In a speech in the House last year, the hon. Member for Enfield, North described the Government's stance as
a ringing endorsement of the rights of the Cambodian people."—[Official Report, 21 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 1225.]
That was his description of the United Nations' annual debate on Cambodia, but every year the United Nations once again endorsed the Khmer Rouge representative as the alleged representative of Cambodia.
If Jane's Defence Weekly is anything to go by, another ringing endorsement of the rights of the Cambodian people by the Government is the provision of training by British forces for troops fighting alongside the Khmer Rouge to overturn the present Government of Cambodia. Jane's Defence Weekly says that that has been going on for four years. When the Prime Minister and the deputy Prime Minister were asked about that on Thursday 2 November in the House of Commons, they dodged the question eight times. The deputy Prime Minister said that it was not the practice to give details of training by British special forces of foreign troops.
The Government cannot hide behind that formula any longer. Only last year, the Prime Minister boasted about British forces training Zimbabwean troops. On 19 July, she said that such training was "greatly appreciated." If that information can be given about training Zimbabwean troops, it must be given about training Cambodian troops. Unless the Minister states unequivocally this afternoon that British service men have not been training Cambodian forces, we shall take it, by his silence or lack of response, that those authoritative allegations are true. We shall have to proceed in the knowledge that the Government are taking positive steps to subvert by force the present regime

in Cambodia by assisting fighting men who are part of an army dominated by what the Foreign and Commonwealth Office calls the
powerful army of the Khmer Rouge.
As the Financial Times stated recently in a leading article,
the Khmer Rouge remains a force to be reckoned with in Cambodia—and one even given a kind of legitimacy by Western Governments.
The Government provide that legitimacy by training troops allied to the Khmer Rouge and by co-sponsoring at the United Nations a resolution which, unless it is changed radically as a result of the Foreign Secretary's announcement last week, speaks of the
continued and effective struggle of the Kampuchean forces under the leadership of Samdech Norodom Sihanouk to achieve the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and neutral and non-aligned status of Kampuchea.
That is to be attained by legitimising forces dominated by the Khmer Rouge.
As The Times stated in a leading article this month,
power sharing is simply not in the Khmer Rouge vocabulary, except as a back door route to ultimate and absolute control.
The Government are conniving in the ultimate and absolute control of Cambodia by Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge.
The Labour party advocates a complete change of policy by the British Government. We believe that they should not continue to co-sponsor the resolution that is before the United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday. I have been notified of a change to the draft resolution. The great alteration that the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs announced to the House in answer to the hon. Member for Broxtowe amounts to the changing of two or three odd words. The phrase
continued and effective struggle of the Kampuchean forces
is changed to
the continued and effective struggle of the Kampuchean people.
What is that cosmetic alteration meant to prove? What struggle is there against the present Cambodian Government other than the armed struggle by the Khmer Rouge? It is a piece of sophistry by the Government to believe that, by changing that word, or one or two others, in the resolution, they can delude us into believing that they are changing their policy.
The Government should abandon their sponsorship of that resolution. I understand that the Swedish Government have done so, and I hope that other Governments are considering doing so.
What is more, we believe that the British Government's support should be withdrawn from the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea and from Prince Sihanouk unless he repudiates any connection with the Khmer Rouge and rids his so-called coalition of the Khmer Rouge. We believe, with The Times, that the Government should consider recognising the Hun Sen Government. On 2 November, The Times said:
There is a case for shortcircuiting the niceties of diplomacy, and recognising the Phnom Penh regime without waiting for a comprehensive political solution. Mr. Hun Sen's government is not a pleasant one. It holds political prisoners and has little time for free speech and multi party-politics. But it has begun religious and economic reforms, encouraging private businesses and allowing farmers to own their land. It has adopted a policy of non-alignment, and it would no longer be accurate to dismiss Mr. Hun Sen as Hanoi's puppet.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup made precisely the same point in his important article in The


Guardian today. It is about time that the Government stopped being a victim of the United States' delusion about Vietnam and acted for themselves properly and sensibly on this issue.
We believe that, from the starting point of recognition today of the existing Government in Phnom Penh, Britain should end its part in the inexcusable aid boycott of Cambodia. There is reason to believe that, despite the Foreign Secretary's claim last week in answer to the hon. Member for Broxtowe—
We stipulate that none of our aid should reach the Khmer Rouge."—[Official Report, 8 November 1989, Vol. 159, c. 645.]—
such aid as is at present intended for Cambodians living in the camps along the Thai-Cambodian border may get into the hands of the Khmer Rouge. The Foreign Secretary announced in his answer that there would be some direct aid to Cambodia, but we believe that British aid for Cambodia should be substantially increased and should go into Cambodia on a large scale to alleviate the terrible suffering of the people of that country. What the Foreign Secretary offered last week is completely inadequate to meet the scale of the need. Once again, it is governed by an obsession with the nature of the Government in Phnom Penh compared with that which is to replace them, and which the Government are assisting.

Mr. Julian Amery: In an otherwise powerful speech, which I very much respect, the right hon. Gentleman has not yet touched on the Paris conference, where all these matters were discussed at great length, nor has he attempted to say where responsibility lies for the failure of that conference.

Mr. Kaufman: As the right hon. Gentleman properly points out, the Paris conference was a failure. It was a failure because many of the main parties to it started from the clear assumption that they could not accept the Government in Phnom Penh and somehow had to get involved with the ragbag coalition behind Prince Sihanouk. Until we move away from that posture, which is invalid and unacceptable, there will be no progress towards settlement in Cambodia.
We believe that the Government should start the process which we have recommended the day after tomorrow in New York, when the United Nations debates Cambodia. The Government cannot attempt to convince anybody in the House who has studied these matters carefully that the cosmetic alteration to the resolution will begin to meet the needs of the situation. The Government should even now challenge the presence at the United Nations of the Khmer Rouge delegate. It is open to them to do so if they wish. They can, if they wish, call for a vote on the seating of the Cambodian delegate. They can, if they wish, demand that any resolution that they co-sponsor should call for the seating of the Khmer Rouge representative to be reviewed in the light of the Vietnamese withdrawal from Cambodia.
The Times, in its leading article on 2 November, said that, directly and indirectly, the British Government, with other Governments, were helping to make possible the return to power in Cambodia of the Khmer Rouge. It pointed out:

The Khmer Rouge when in power depopulated the towns, and systematically starved and murdered thier countrymen. The absolute priority is to deprive them of a second opportunity.
Let us make no mistake: any country that directly or indirectly helps to make possible the return of the Khmer Rouge to power in Cambodia is colluding in a repetition of the atrocities in Cambodia which have added new words to the world's political dictionary and which are branded on the minds and consciences of millions throughout the world, including many British people. We speak this evening for those millions in urging a change of British Government policy on Cambodia. If the Minister does not announce such a change, we shall tonight not only speak for the millions who care, but register our votes for them.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'welcomes the Government's consistent refusal to give support to either the PRK or the murderous Khmer Rouge; commends its commitment to finding a peaceful and comprehensive settlement endorsed by the Cambodian people; and welcomes the increased assistance which the Government is providing for the innocent victims of this tragic conflict.'.
The speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was eloquent, and no one doubts the genuine care and passion that have gone into it.
I genuinely welcome this debate, because this is a difficult and important subject. It is a welcome opportunity to describe in detail the consistency of British Government policy, both under the present and the preceding Labour Administrations, in condemning the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in 1978, in refusing to have dealings with the Phnom Penh regime or to support the Khmer Rouge in any way and in a steady commitment to a sovereign, independent, neutral Cambodia, with the Cambodian people deciding their own future through free and fair elections.
We are witnessing the collapse of worldwide Communism. Regional conflicts, such as Cambodia and Afghanistan, should be soluble on the basis that the long-suffering people themselves decide under which form of government they want to live. That is our policy, and doubtless that of the Opposition as well.
The Opposition motion concentrates heavily and rightly on the paramount need——

Mr. Heffer: Will the Minster give way?

Mr. Waldegrave: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I then want to develop my argument.

Mr. Heffer: This is an important point. The Minister said that the Government had never given support to the Khmer Rouge, but have the Government ever challenged the credentials of those who sit in the United Nations and who are known to be Khmer Rouge?

Mr. Waldegrave: I shall come to that very point in the central part of my speech, so I ask the hon. Gentlemen to be patient for a short time.
If the motion had said simply that it was intolerable to support the Khmer Rouge, there would have been no


problem about accepting it. Let us be clear at the outset that the Khmer Rouge is a particularly evil mutation of Communism and Pol Pot a particularly evil man.
The Khmer Rouge was helped to power in 1975 by the then North Vietnam. From 1975 to 1978, the Vietnamese leadership repeatedly praised the Khmer Rouge and its
precious assistance to the revolutionary cause",
and attacked the West and the United States for slandering the regime. That was done while mass murder was being committed. Also during that terrible period, there were those in the West who chose to be silent about what was going on inside Cambodia and who denounced atrocity reports as American fabrications, aimed at ex post facto justification of United States involvement in the Vietnam war. One such was the ineffable Professor Noam Chomsky. Such people, including journalists, are not well placed to lead moral crusades, least of all against the West, when it might stimulate us to look back at what they were writing at the time.
The attitude of the then Labour Government to the murderous Pol Pot regime was stated by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Mr. Evan Luard, on 30 March 1977 in reply to a Conservative Member's request that the large-scale slaughter in Cambodia should be raised in the Security Council. Mr. Luard replied:
With regard to Cambodia, however much we may deplore the situation there, it is clear that till is primarily a domestic matter, and, therefore, not a matter for the United Nations."—[Official Report, 30 March 1977: Vol. 929, c. 379.]
Nevertheless, that attitude, happily, soon changed. In 1978, the British Government took the lead in raising the situation in Cambodia at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and called for an inquiry.
At the end of 1978, following an increasingly anti-Vietnamese line by the Pol Pot regime, the Vietnamese invaded. The Soviet Union vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire and the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Cambodia in the wake of that invasion.

Mr. Mullin: The Minister missed out a small matter in his history of the conflict. The Vietnamese invasion was not unprovoked. It followed attacks by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge on border provinces, in which perhaps 20,000 men, women and children were horribly butchered. There were similar attacks on and around the border of Thailand, but we choose to forget that. In addition, several hundred thousand refugees fled Cambodia under the Pol Pot regime, so terrible was life there. Whether the Vietnamese invasion was right or wrong, we should not ignore the reasons for it.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. Perhaps I made an understatement when I said that the Khmer Rouge took an increasingly anti-Vietnamese line. There were serious attacks by the Khmer Rouge on Vietnam.
When the people's army of Vietnam had overrun the country, its tanks were only a matter of hours from Bangkok. Naturally, Thailand and its friends and allies were alarmed. As I am sure the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) will agree—indeed, he has just confirmed it—the Vietnamese invaded for strategic reasons. As Thailand's Foreign Minister, Nguyen Co Thach, later told Congressman Solarz:
Human rights was not a question; that was their problem … We were concerned only with security.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Mr. Evan Luard, stated on 21 March 1979:
I do not think that two wrongs make a right. Therefore, however bad the human rights situation was in Cambodia, I do not think that it excuses an almost equally bad situation in Vietnam. It does not excuse an attack by Vietnam on Cambodia."—[Official Report, 21 March 1979; Vol. 964, c. 1479.]
The Minister of State, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, referred to
one dictatorship imposed upon another."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 February, 1979, Vol. 398 c. 1385.]
At the same time, the Government decided to terminate most aid to Vietnam. Mr. Luard stated:
since 1978 Vietnamese policies on human rights, over the exodus of boat refugees and in relation to Cambodia have caused us increasing concern … Because of our concern about recent developments in Vietnamese policy we have cancelled most of this aid."—[Official Report, 21 March 1979; Vol. 964, c. 1478.]—
that is, bilateral aid. We continued the same policy. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirmed that on 3 July 1979, when she stated:
There will be no more aid to Vietnam so long as the present circumstances continue."—[Official Report, 3 July 1979; Vol. 969, c. 1117.]
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South raised the often misunderstood question of the recognition of Governments and of credentials. Since 1980, Britain has recognised states, not Governments. One advantage of that is that we do not have to judge between competing claimants in circumstances of civil war or conflict. But in 1979, the position was different. Our criterion then for recognition of a Government was whether or not it had effective control over the greater part of the country. That was not a moral criterion, simply a descriptive criterion, and it led us to abandon recognition of the Khmer Rouge Government in 1979.
As we now recognise states, not Governments, our only judgment is whether there is a Government within a country with which we are able to deal. Obviously the extent of that Government's ability of themselves to control their territory, will be one consideration. So will the assessment of British interests. At present, we recognise no Government in Cambodia.
There is also the separate issue of Cambodian credentials at the United Nations, which is mentioned in the motion. It is clear that the credentials committee could find no technical or legal reason for debarring the Cambodian delegation from this year's General Assembly. It is equally clear that, if there had been a vote in the General Assembly, the so-called coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea would have won it overwhelmingly. This has not, therefore, been the most profitable pressure point on which to concentrate.
As I have said, neither our recognition of the reality of the situation, nor any other action of ours implies recognition of the coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea or any other party as the legitimate Government in Cambodia. A dispute over credentials might also have split the unity of the Association of South-East Asian Nations which we hoped would be the principal vehicle for diplomatic progress towards a settlement in Cambodia.
We are adopting our stance at the United Nations. We have taken action with our friends and partners to modify the draft resolution which we, with 74 other member states, are co-sponsoring at the United Nations General Assembly in the debate on 15 November. The changes are


intended to make it clear that the situation in Cambodia has altered and that we do not support the Khmer Rouge in any way. They have been welcomed by Hanoi.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am aware that these are difficult diplomatic issues. Does the Minister accept that to object to the credentials of the Government of Kampuchea presently represented at the United Nations would at least facilitate a debate on the matter, but would not necessarily precipitate a vote, with the adverse results that he anticipates?

Mr. Waldegrave: All the expert advice from our mission to the United Nations is that such a move would be wrong.
As I said, the main thrust of British-Cambodian policy was laid down during the 1978–79 period and has been consistent ever since.

Mr. Pat Wall: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Waldegrave: No. If I continue to give way, there will be no time for anyone else to speak in the debate.
Our policy has been to secure the withdrawal of Vietnamese forces from the country which they invaded and to allow the Cambodian people themselves to decide their own government. It seeks to prevent the return of the Khmer Rouge to power and to avoid providing legitimacy for a regime of former Khmer Rouge officers, originally imposed by Vietnamese bayonets. Since Vietnam has withdrawn its combat units, our policy has had some success, although the need for self-determination for Cambodia and for arrangements which prevent the return of the Khmer Rouge remain as strong as ever.
Despite regular comdemnation by the international community at the United Nations over the past decade, it was not until this September that Vietnam finally decided to withdraw its combat units. We believe that this represents another result of Mr. Gorbachev's pragmatic and positive foreign policy. On 5 April 1989, in a tripartite declaration with Laos and the Phnom Penh regime, the Vietnamese Government announced their intention to withdraw their troops unconditionally by the end of September, while asserting the right to return if the need arises.
That announcement led to the courageous decision of the French Government to convene an international conference in Paris in August. The purpose was to put in place a comprehensive settlement covering all aspects of the problem, including an international control mechanism, before Vietnamese troops withdrew at the end of September. It was hoped that the withdrawal would then be internationally monitored.
The conference was a race against the Vietnamese deadline. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the noble Lord Brabazon participated in that conference, which made a good start. French and Indonesian diplomacy persuaded all four Cambodian factions—that is, the Phnom Penh regime, the two non-Communist factions, and the Khmer Rouge—to sit down together at the same negotiating table behind one plaque entitled "Cambodia". That that was possible at all was also in large measure due to the efforts of Prince Sihanouk, still the only person in a position to claim widespread allegiance in Cambodia.
The Paris conference decided that the objective should be a comprehensive settlement. It therefore set up three working committees. The first was on a ceasefire and the operation of an effective international control mechanism to supervise and control the comprehensive implementation of a settlement. The second was to define the commitments of participating states to guarantee the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and neutrality of Cambodia, to ensure the cessation and non-recurrence of all foreign interference and external arms supplies and to prevent the recurrence of genocidal policies and practices—the return of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge—and the return of foreign interference—Vietnamese re-invasion.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What evidence is there that, to use the Minister's words, Prince Sihanouk was the only person with widespread influence in Cambodia? Some of us who were there a long time ago doubted it then, and there is every reason to doubt it now.

Mr. Waldegrave: The phrase that I used was "widespread allegiance". The best evidence to give—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked a question, and perhaps he would like to hear the answer. The best evidence is to be found in the steps that led to the creation of that joint delegation in Paris. I do not believe that that would have come about without Prince Sihanouk's intervention, which showed that he still carries considerable influence. I can understand the hon. Gentleman's scepticism, but Prince Sihanouk is perhaps the best there is.
The Paris conference decided that the objective should be a comprehensive settlement. The third of the three committees was to define the conditions that would enable refugees and displaced persons to return home if they so desired and to prepare the main elements of an international plan for the reconstruction of Cambodia. All those elements are necessary if settlement is to be truly comprehensive and not partial. Most encouraging of all was the agreement to create an ad hoc committee to examine questions concerning the implementation of national reconciliation and the setting up of a quadripartite interim authority under the leadership of Prince Sihanouk, with responsibility for organising internationally supervised free elections within a reasonable period.
I draw the attention of the House to the crucial fact that the Foreign Ministers of all the participating nations, including Vietnam, China and the Soviet Union, as well as the United States and the ASEAN countries, agreed that the interim authority should be quadripartite—that is to say that it should include all four factions, including representatives of the Khmer Rouge and the former Khmer Rouge who constitute the Heng Samrin regime.
The basis for that general agreement—this is the heart of the Opposition's disagreement with our policy, although it is not an illogical policy and it is certainly not a dishonourable policy—was the judgment that, if a protracted civil war is to be avoided and if the settlement is to be durable, it would be better to include all the factions in the interim authority, rather than exclude the Khmer Rouge and risk its return to guerrilla warfare in the jungle.

Mr. Kaufman: If the Government want to avoid a protracted civil war in Cambodia, why are they providing special forces training to one of the participants in that war?

Mr. Waldegrave: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I will give no answer—any more than my right hon. Friends did. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, then the Foreign Secretary, made it clear that the composition of the transitional arrangements was primarily a matter for the Cambodian leader to decide.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has been asked a question of fact. Does he not have an obligation to the House to answer a question of fact?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): That is not a matter over which I have any authority. Ministers and hon. Members must be responsible for their own statements and speeches.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are talking about taxpayers' money. Surely the Minister cannot deny that that money is being used to fund the murderous Pol Pot.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you tell us whether the Minister's statement will preclude hon. Members from tabling further questions on the matter? Am I right in thinking that it will not preclude the Minister's appearing in front of the relevant Select Committee to answer—or not answer—similar questions?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not have responsibility for the conduct of Select Committees. The hon. Gentleman asked about questions. Nothing that is said in a debate of itself precludes the tabling of questions, although other criteria may well influence it.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that I had made it clear that this is not a point of order for me. I remind the House that there are a number of hon. Members waiting to take part in this brief debate.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Minister said that he could not answer, but he answered a similar question on Zimbabwe. Will he withdraw his remarks and say not, "I cannot answer," but, "I refuse to answer"?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman inadvertently makes my point for me, because there have been no special forces ever involved in Zimbabwe.

Mr. Kaufman: So what the hon. Gentleman is saying is that there are special forces involved. If there were not special forces involved, he would be able to answer the question about military training.

Mr. Waldegrave: The right hon. Gentleman, with his slightly schoolboyish debating skills, tries to make a bogus point. The military training for the Zimbabwe army is not special forces training. We do plenty of open military training for friendly countries around the world. We have never ever commented on the role of the special forces

—either to say yes or to say no—and that remains the position just as it has been the position of Labour Governments.
My right hon. Friend the then Foreign Secretary made it clear that the composition of the transitional arrangements was primarily a matter for the Cambodian leaders to decide. But, he added, the international community
has a duty to ensure that Cambodia is never again subjected to the degradation of the Pol Pot era. Through their action between 1975 and 1978, the Khmer Rouge must surely have forfeited any right to regain power.
The opening ministerial conference also agreed to send a United Nations fact finding team to establish whether a United Nations monitoring force could be deployed. It reported that this should be feasible, thus demonstrating that United Nations auspices could be established for a settlement, even though this issue too proved a major obstacle to agreement.
It is a source of profound regret that, despite these hopeful beginnings, one month later, when the second ministerial conference reconvened, the four Cambodian factions were further apart than they had been at the beginning. In particular, the Phnom Penh regime was not prepared to share power with the external Cambodian resistance in the transitional period before elections. Its position had hardened.
The attempt at national reconciliation therefore foundered and a return to the battlefield became inevitable. It seemed that, once Vietnam decided that a partial solution was not on—that is to say, international credit for troop withdrawal but no more—it lost interest in the proceedings. Those countries directly concerned must bear a heavy responsibility for the failure, and I have in mind the leaderships in Phnom Penh and Hanoi as well as in Peking. It is their consciences which should be under the spotlight; they are the centrally involved countries.
Agreement could have been possible if all concerned had shown the necessary flexibility. Up to the last moment, the French and Indonesian co-chairmen worked tirelessly for a political breakthrough. But it never came.
Even now, we refuse to renounce the hope that it will be possible to reconvene the Paris conference where so much useful work was done. We stand ready to play our part, for example, by participating in realistic international guarantees, if and when the conference is able to resume. It would, we are convinced, be a mistake at this juncture to abandon hope of a comprehensive and durable settlement, which we firmly believe to be the best way of keeping out the Khmer Rouge. That is why we continue to support that objective, as set out in the United Nations General Assembly resolution on the situation in Cambodia, which we shall co-sponsor.
Vietnam announced the final withdrawal of its forces from Cambodia on 26 September. Despite the absence of international verification, as the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said on 8 November, we accept that their combat units have been withdrawn, and we have reviewed the implementation of our objectives in light of these events.
I remind the House what my right hon. Friend said because in large measure it anticipates the Opposition motion over the United Nations and over humanitarian aid. He announced that we shall build up our humanitarian aid programme. We shall continue to provide substantial help to the many thousands of


Cambodians living in camps along the Thai-Cambodia border who have been made homeless by the years of fighting. We stipulate that none of our aid should reach the Khmer Rouge.
We shall now increase the humanitarian aid that we give inside Cambodia, while continuing to channel aid through non-governmental organisations and organisations such as UNICEF, and not direct to the Phnom Penh regime. As part of the policy, we propose to offer now a further contribution of £250,000 to UNICEF for humanitarian projects inside Cambodia. Arrangements will be made for a member of the British embassy in Bangkok to visit Phnom Penh soon to report on the situation at first hand. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will meet the heads of the non-governmental organisations tomorrow to discuss details. As I have already said, we have taken action to adapt our stance at the United Nations.
I should like to say a word about our policy towards Vietnam, which bears a heavy responsibility for the Cambodian tragedy. As I explained at the beginning, in 1979 the decision to cut off British aid was related to Vietnam's policies on human rights, the exodus of boat people and the Cambodian invasion.
In recognition of Vietnam's role, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear in Paris that
we look to the Vietnamese Government to live up to its wider responsibilities—towards Cambodia, towards its neighbours and towards its own people. Only in these new circumstances is my Government prepared to consider contributing to programmes of assistance to help Vietnam.
The withdrawal of Vietnamese combat units from Cambodia is an important and welcome step. In the context of a comprehensive settlement, it could indeed be a decisive step towards Vietnam's international rehabilitation. But for that we need a negotiated settlement, not a trial of strength on the battlefield.
We also accept that the human rights situation in Vietnam has improved, despite the cold-war rhetoric of the seventh party plenum, with its outdated references to "capitalist encirclement". It is surely evidence of Vietnam's improved performance in that area that the screening of boat people in Hong Kong reveals that the vast bulk are not fleeing persecution, but simply seeking a better economic life. In one sense, that is encouraging.
But we still look to Vietnam to state clearly and unequivocally that it is prepared to accept back in safety and dignity all those who are screened out, in accordance with the responsibilities of states towards their own people. We welcome Vietnam's co-operation over the return of volunteers, 500 of whom have now gone back.
We will go on working with our friends and partners for a sovereign and independent Cambodia whose people are free to decide their own future. That remains the overriding priority. We have never given, and will never give, support of any kind to the Khmer Rouge.
There are new diplomatic ideas coming forward, for resuming the Paris conference, for a step-by-step approach, as proposed by the Thai Prime Minister, for an interim United Nations authority, as suggested by Congressman Solarz. We are considering these carefully, in the context of the forthcoming United Nations general asembly debate and its aftermath. A return to the negotiating table is becoming increasingly urgent.
We wish to see peace and stability restored to Cambodia through a comprehensive political settlement which will create the conditions in which the Cambodian people can elect a Government of their choice, free from the fear of Khmer Rouge atrocities, foreign occupation or civil war. In consultation with our friends and allies, notably the ASEAN group of countries, we will continue to work to this end.
I do not believe that the Cambodian people would willingly choose either the murderous Khmer Rouge or the ex-Khmer Rouge which constitute the present regime in Phnom-Penh. What we need are free and fair elections to decide. Our diplomacy will be directed towards bringing them about.

Sir Russell Johnston: This afternoon, the Minister appeared to be a decent, fair-minded man who was landed with an awful brief. It may well be, as his historical chronology showed, that there is some continuity between this Government and the Labour Government of the 1970s, but none of his comments were any more relevant than that. I was saddened as I listened to him plough grimly through his speech, and I suspect that he was a bit sad himself—not least when he was struggling with questions about military training which were obviously right on the button. It must have been a very bad day for the Minister.
This is a most appropriate time to have this debate. We are debating the subject not just because of the situation in Cambodia, but because of the hard work of Oxfam, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development and Christian Aid and because of John Pilger's television programme which had a tremendous effect on so many people and resulted in a remarkable number of people writing to hon. Members and to the Foreign Office.
I commend the Labour party for having this debate today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said during business questions last Thursday, we are very much at one with the Labour party on this issue. I commend the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on his speech.
As the right hon. Member for Gorton said very clearly, there is a real and terrible risk that the Khmer Rouge could return to power. Those with expert, first-hand knowledge of Cambodia have warned of that for well over a year. For some reason that I do not understand, from the very start the Government and the Foreign Office have been unwilling to respond. There is some weird, deeply misguided, chess game of politics going on.
In that excellent book on Cambodia, "Punishing the Poor" by Eva Myslievisc, there is a startling quote from a member of the British embassy:
Let's be realistic, it's only 6 million people.
That attitude is quite unacceptable to the people of this country. However, it seems to be the attitude that the Government are taking.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Gorton that we cannot really understand the present situation without looking back to the Khmer Rouge's tyranny between 1976 and 1980. However, we must consider that. As we remember the fallen of two world wars, we must also accept that the Khmer Rouge were far more brutal and murderous than Hitler. We must consider the terror and damage in the killing fields among a population not much bigger than that of Greater London. One million people


were executed or were killed in other ways. There were 450 doctors in 1975, but only 45 remained in 1979. Schools, hospitals and the legal system were abolished. There was an extraordinary, savage madness. The idea that that should be allowed to return is appalling.
Presumably Conservative Members will support the Government if there is a Division. However, they must recall that the Khmer Rouge regime was brought to an end only through Vietnamese intervention. That is a fact. No hon. Member could put his hand on his heart and say that the Vietnamese were wrong to intervene and topple such a regime. In a rather extraordinary passage towards the end of his speech, the Minister said that somehow or other the Vietnamese had a heavy responsibility for Cambodia. For God's sake—hey stopped the regime. That is the crucial point.

Mr. Mullin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia took place the very week that Tanzania invaded Uganda, with western support, to put an end to the Idi Amin regime? Quite different things were said about that.

Sir Russell Johnston: I had forgotten that, but the hon. Gentleman's point is fair and apposite.
We must surely accept that ousting Pol Pot was justified. What possible justification is there for the continuing isolation of what is the de facto Government of Cambodia in Phnom Penh? Despite the long passage in the Minister's speech about that, in any other country we would by now have accepted reality and sent ambassadors. In response to questions, we would have said that of course that does not mean that we approve of the regime, but it is in control and that has always been our policy. I have heard that policy reiterated many times when hon. Members have asked for ambassadors to be withdrawn because they did not like a regime. The answer is always that the regime is in control and the Government do not express a view for or against it.
The only reason for non-recognition was the continuing presence of Vietnamese troops. The argument was that the regime was not the de facto Government because the Vietnamese were in control. That argument has disappeared: the rug has been pulled out from under it. The Government must change their position. It is extraordinary that on Wednesday we shall be prepared to continue to support the United Nations recommendation of that gentleman from the Khmer Rouge.

Sir Peter Blaker: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that on Wednesday we shall debate the recognition of the representative of democratic Kampuchea. That is not on the agenda for Wednesday. There is a substantive resolution on what attitude or action the United Nations should take.

Sir Russell Johnston: On Wednesday the Government will have the right to object to the credentials of the Khmer Rouge representative, and that can change their position. They can do that if they have the political will to do so. That point was also made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton and it is crucial if the House is to influence what the Government do at the United Nations.
The recent so-called Paris peace conference did not succeed because the West made the profound error of pushing to have the Khmer Rouge accepted as part of an interim Government. That is unacceptable to the

remainder of Cambodians. I do not understand the Government's position and all the stuff about moderate Khmer Rouge participation. Who are the moderates and where are they? It is incredible nonsense and should be recognised as such. Lord Brabazon of Tara said that he did not know the names. The Minister and the Foreign Office have had time to produce the names of all those moderates.

Mrs. Mahon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on this point about the moderate——

Sir Russell Johnston: I will give way in a moment, if the hon. Lady will calm herself.

Mrs. Mahon: It is an emotive issue.

Sir Russell Johnston: I will give way in a moment. I was about to finish my sentence.
If the Minister knows any moderate Khmer Rouge, hon. Members would be interested to hear of them. I certainly do not know any and those who work for Oxfam and other agencies in Cambodia do not know any, either.

Mrs. Mahon: I did not realise that I was being excitable. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. About 10 days ago, I wrote to the Prime Minister asking who were the reasonable members of the Khmer Rouge. I have had a holding letter but no reply to date.

Sir Russell Johnston: Perhaps the Minister for Overseas Development will comment on that.
To put it bluntly, the Paris conference failed because of the West's insistence of Khmer Rouge participation. I respect the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He is a fair-minded and reasonable man. If the Government are serious about this matter, the best way forward is to establish links with the existing Phnom Penh Government and support a negotiated peace settlement based on free elections in which the Khmer Rouge play no part—no part whatever. The Khmer Rouge are not interested in free elections or fairness. Such an outcome could—I do not say will—lead to a more pluralist and neutral Cambodia. If the Government continue with their present policy, they may one day need to explain why the Khmer Rouge have again taken power by force.

Sir Peter Blaker: I lived in Cambodia for two years, so I speak against the Khmer Rouge with as much feeling as any other hon. Member. I view with as much horror as any other hon. Member the possibility of the Khmer Rouge's return to greater influence. I speak also with a greater feel for the country and certainly a greater knowledge of its history than some hon. Members have.
During the speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) I questioned how much of the recent history of Cambodia he was familiar with. I regret that, once again, the right hon. Gentleman's paranoia about the United States seemed to dominate his speech. Conservative Members are familiar with Labour Members' paranoia about the United States. It often causes them to make foreign policy misjudgments. It was interesting that the right hon. Gentleman did not mention a group of countries that have had a much greater influence on the formation of this country's policy. I refer to ASEAN, the Association of South-East Asian Nations,


our European allies, our NATO allies and many other countries at the United Nations which agree with us. There are 74 United Nations countries, in addition to ourselves, sponsoring the resolution to be debated on Wednesday.
The right hon. Gentleman did not mention ASEAN at all. If an Opposition spokesman makes a major speech on this subject and does not mention ASEAN, he obviously does not know what he is talking about. That is patently obvious to anybody who knows the history of Cambodia or south-east Asia over the past 10 years. That is a fundamental condemnation of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The thought crossed my mind that the right hon. Gentleman might regard this issue simply as a convenient bandwagon on which to jump.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we should recognise Hun Sen. He overlooked the fact that we do not now recognise any Governments. By implication the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), too, suggested that we should recognise the Hun Sen Government. He said that if such a situation had existed for 10 years in any other country we would have recognised the Government in control. I do not believe that we would have recognised a Government who had been put into power by force or by war and had never been exposed to a free election. That is not our tradition.
My hon. Friend the Minister reminded us that the Conservative Government withdrew recognition from the Khmer Rouge in the days when we did recognise Governments or withdrew recognition from Governments, a practice which, as he explained, was changed in 1980.
The previous Labour Government declared that the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia was unjustified. Border incidents provoked by the Khmer Rouge have been mentioned. No doubt they occurred, but they did not justify the Vietnamese action. I agree with what the Labour Government said at the time. It certainly did not justify an occupation which lasted 11 years, without an opportunity for the Cambodian people to express their wishes.

Sir Russell Johnston: I cannot speak for the right hon. Gentleman, but when he referred to "border incidents" and to "troubles", I remind him that we are talking about 20,000 people dead.

Sir Peter Blaker: I do not know whether there were 20,000 dead, but the Pol Pot regime certainly caused trouble on the border. What I have just said—perhaps the hon. Gentleman should listen—is that not only did the Vietnamese occupy the whole of Cambodia in an all-out war which was launched on, as I recall it, Christmas day 1978, but they stayed for 11 years. If it was a punitive expedition and if there was no intention of establishing a Vietnamese influence, having established their point by punishing the Pol Pot regime, why did not the Vietnamese give the people of Cambodia an opportunity to show how they wished to be governed?

Mr. Heffer: I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to an article by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who stated:

Any visitor to that country would tell you that whatever the natural dislike of the Cambodian people for their aggressive neighbours, the vast majority is far more horrified by the prospect of a return to power of the Khmer Rouge.
Does that mean nothing to the right hon. Gentleman?

Sir Peter Blaker: rose——

Mr. Heffer: Before the right hon. Gentleman resumes his speech, I must point out that the Labour Government were wrong in what they said about the Vietnamese. Does what has happened, with the stopping of more than 2 million people—because 2 million people were killed—mean nothing at all to the right hon. Gentleman?

Sir Peter Blaker: I can only assume that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) was not listening to the early part of my speech, because I started by saying that I feel the same abhorrence for what has happened as any hon. Member. For heaven's sake, I lived in Cambodia for two years—which I do not think that any other hon. Member has done—so I know about the Cambodian people and how agreeable they naturally are. I lived in that country with great pleasure for two years. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, he should first take care to have listened to the earlier part of the speech in which he wishes to intervene.
I suspect that one reason why the Opposition have chosen this debate is that we have recently seen on television another example of what I describe as "Pilgerisation"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, I know something of the facts of Cambodia——

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: So does he.

Sir Peter Blaker: I know Cambodia from further back—for a longer period—than Mr. Pilger. To Pilgerise is to distort the real picture by a mixture of 50 per cent. fact, 25 per cent. omission of facts, and 25 per cent. innuendo. If anybody really believes that the true and dispassionate picture of Cambodia is that presented by Mr. Pilger's programmes, that person is sadly misled.

Mr. Heffer: Did Heath Pilgerise as well?

Sir Peter Blaker: Before coming to what I believe should be done, I want to put three points right. First—I do not believe that this has been mentioned so far—Vietnam is the hereditary enemy of Cambodia. Their relationship is as acrimonious historically as the relationship between any two countries of which one cares to think. The two countries are racially and culturally different. They are also different in religion and language. They have almost nothing in common. Their relationship is as acrimonious as that between India and Pakistan; Iran and Iraq; the Hutu and the Tuts; Wanda and Burundi; the Islamic people of Sudan and the Christian people of Sudan; the Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland. Although that is the sort of relationship about which we are talking, no one has mentioned that yet. That is the context in which one has to put the 11 years of Vietnamese occupation. It is not occupation by a friendly neighbour, it is occupation by the ancestral enemy.

Mr. Lester: While accepting that that is the historical position, may I ask my right hon. Friend to accept that for the people of Cambodia their relationship with Vietnam is considerably better than their relationship with the Pol Pot regime?

Sir Peter Blaker: There seems to be some impression that I am defending the Pol Pot regime—

Hon. Members: Yes.

Mr. George Galloway: The hon. Gentleman should read his speech in Hansard in the morning.

Sir Peter Blaker: I am assuming that hon. Members are intent not simply on scoring points, but on understanding the position. I accept that after Christmas day 1978, when Vietnam invaded and destroyed the Pol Pot regime, the position for most—nearly all—Cambodians was better than under the Pol Pot regime. I entirely support that proposition. I have never denied it. I am saying, first, that the Vietnamese invasion was condemned at the time by the Labour Government——

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: We were wrong.

Sir Peter Blaker: I accept that many Opposition Members think that what the Labour Government did was wrong. They think that lots of things that the Labour Government did in office were wrong. It is an entertaining experience to watch them——

Mr. Heffer: Has the Prime Minister never made any mistakes?

Sir Peter Blaker: It was not necessary for Vietnam to remain in occupation of Cambodia for 11 years with large forces and, knowing the relationship between the two countries, to give the people of Cambodia——

Mr. Heffer: rose——

Sir Peter Blaker: No, I shall not give way at the moment.
Knowing the ancestral ambitions of Vietnam, which, during the entire 19th century, was gradually nibbling away at Cambodian territory—as Thailand was from the other side—it should have been Vietnamese policy, if Vietnam was genuinely peace-loving and had the interests of the Cambodian people at heart, to give them the opportunity of freely deciding by what Government they should be ruled.

Mr. Wareing: Surely the events of the past few weeks justify the period of that occupation by the Vietnamese, because, when the Vietnamese withdrew, the Khmer Rouge invaded. Indeed, they have already occupied the town of Pailin—there are reports of 17,000 people killed in that part of the world—and are now approaching Battambang, which is the second largest town in Cambodia. Unless there is some international action, there will be a return of Pol Pot, which the right hon. Gentleman seems to be justifying.

Sir Peter Blaker: I can only assume that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) is not listening to my speech either. I wish that Opposition Members would listen to what I am actually saying as opposed to what they think I am saying or what they would like me to be saying. That is not what I was saying.

Mr. Wareing: I have been there.

Sir Peter Blaker: I will come—if I am allowed to—to some proposals about what should be done. Meanwhile, I repeat that Britain has not been alone in the policy that it has followed during the past 11 years.
My second point is that, after the Vietnamese invasion we were urged, as were our friends and allies in Europe and the United States, by the countries of ASEAN, next door to Vietnam and Cambodia, to adopt the policy to which we eventually agreed—that is, to reject the credentials of the Vietnamese-installed regime at the United Nations and to insist that Vietnam should withdraw from Cambodia. That urging was not from the United States, it was from the people of ASEAN: the south-east Asian nations, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia and subsequently Brunei. They were extremely nervous about Vietnam which, after all, only a few years earlier had won the Vietnam war in which North Vietnam was the aggressor. The Vietnamese had by far the largest army in that part of the world—an extremely powerful army. There would have been great alarm in ASEAN if we had adopted any other course. Indeed, that course was adopted by most of the free world.
To assume that the United States policy is one of revenge against Vietnam and to assume that, along with the other 74 countries at the United Nations which share our view, we have tamely followed the wishes of the United States, is wholly to mislead oneself. The policy was motivated by a refusal to recognise aggression, and it was urged on us and other like-minded countries especially by the friendly countries of south-east Asia. Our action had the successful effect of stabilising south-east Asia during a dangerous time.
My third point relates to Prince Sihanouk. When I was in Cambodia in the 1950s, Prince Sihanouk, who had been king, but abdicated because he wanted to become Prime Minister, ran for election. I observed the election of 1955 on behalf of the British Government and it was the first election to be conducted after independence was declared in 1954. In the judgment of all the observers, including not only our embassy of which I was a member, but the international control commission, consisting of Poland, Canada, and India, that election was fair. Sihanouk emerged as the victor with an enormous margin. It is no exaggeration to say that the people of Cambodia regarded him as something close to God.
Since the 1955 election, things have changed. Sihanouk has frequently made statements that have been regarded, understandably, as eccentric. It is my guess, however, that if a free election were conducted again, any party led by Sihanouk would win with a substantial majority. The way to find out would be to arrange for a properly conducted, internationally supervised, free election. The speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton was extremely thin regarding his own proposals.
Sihanouk is no friend of the Khmer Rouge. I believe that five of his children and many of his grandchildren were killed by the Khmer Rouge, and he was imprisoned by it. He has no reason to love the Khmer Rouge. Sihanouk's forces, which, unfortunately, are less numerous than the forces of the Khmer Rouge, are separate from them. The so-called coalition between the Khmer Rouge, Sihanouk and Son San does not represent one army controlled by the Khmer Rouge—there are three armies fighting in three locations. If Sihanouk and Son San believe that it would be right to have an interim


Government to prepare for elections, in which part of the Khmer Rouge would be included, Opposition Members should attach importance to that view.
I also believe that it would be legitimate for the British Government, and for other Governments who want Cambodia restored to freedom, to support Sihanouk. Among other things, that support would strengthen him against the Khmer Rouge.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that the coalition is dominated diplomatically, politically, militarily, and legally by the Khmer Rouge? That is the problem with recognising that coalition—the dominant partner is the Khmer Rouge.

Sir Peter Blaker: Certainly the forces of the Khmer Rouge represent the largest power militarily, but I do not accept that it dominates the coalition.
One of the problems is China. The Chinese Government have been the principal supporter of the Khmer Rouge. A few months ago there were signs that China was prepared to change that policy. Chinese spokesmen have told me that the Khmer Rouge have made blunders—a strong statement coming from the Chinese. I do not know the present Chinese posture nor whether it has changed since the events of 4 June. When my right hon. Friend replies to this debate, I would be interested to know whether there is any information about the current Chinese attitude. One of the keys to resolving this extremely difficult problem would be for China to stop helping the Khmer Rouge.
What should be our course of action? We are right to aim for a comprehensive settlement, and that was something that the recent Paris conference hoped to achieve. That settlement should involve United Nations verification that the Vietnamese forces have withdrawn. An interim Government should be established to prepare for the elections. It is not satisfactory for the Hun Sen Government alone to prepare those elections as I do not believe that the rest of the world would have confidence in their freedom. The elections should be supervised by the United Nations. When the comprehensive settlement has been achieved, the incoming Government should receive large-scale economic assistance from all aid donors.
We cannot tell who would win such an election as the situation has changed enormously in the past 15 years. Perhaps the scepticism displayed by Opposition Members towards Sihanouk is justified—I do not know. The only way to find out is to hold such an election. I doubt very much, however, that the victor would be Hun Sen.
Unlike the right hon. Member for Gorton and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) I do not believe that it is sufficiently established that Hun Sen is the acceptable Head of Government for the Cambodian people. There are strong suggestions that all the Vietnamese forces have left, but we cannot assume that that is correct. That withdrawal requires verification, especially as the Chinese have said that they will withdraw support from the Khmer Rouge once they are satisfied that the Vietnamese forces have left.
The Labour party has initiated this debate with inadequate understanding of the history of Cambodia or of the factors that influenced our Government, in common with 74 other Governments, to adopt their present policy.

That policy is right, but I also believe that the Government have been right recently to shift it in a more positive direction. No doubt we shall continue to assess what the next step should be. We should work as hard as we can for the resumption of a comprehensive conference leading towards a comprehensive settlement.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a brief debate and obviously a number of hon. Members want to take part. I appeal for speeches shorter than those we have had so far.

Mr. Ernie Ross: I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall be brief, as I know that a number of my hon. Friends want to participate. I believe that my hon. Friends' contributions will represent a much more accurate reflection of the situation in south-east Asia than that presented by the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker). It is relevant that the only date he could mention when he had been in the area was in the mid-1950s. His speech reminded me of someone harking back to those old colonial days of the 1950s. I hope that some of my hon. Friends, who have had much more up-to-date experience than the right hon. Gentleman, can contribute to the debate.
The right hon. Member for Blackpool, South attacked the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). The right hon. Gentleman suggested that my right hon. Friend had omitted to mention a number of things. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) will rectify that when she replies.
What my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton was trying to make clear, not only on behalf of the Labour Party, but on behalf of the other opposition parties, and even some Conservative Members, was the absolute abhorrence among our people of the way in which the British Government are deliberately distorting our position in the United Nations and other world bodies as it relates to Cambodia. I am sure that, when we read the speeches in Hansard, even the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South will have cause to regret some of the things he said, especially when he reads the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton.
Some of the right hon. Gentleman's comments were incredible. He said that, when the Vietnamese forces invaded Kampuchea, as it was then known, they destroyed Pol Pot. That is nonsense, and I hope that it is the last piece of nonsense we hear in the debate. They managed to drag Pol Pot from Kampuchea across the border into Thailand, where the regime was sustained by the same forces who are trying to justify that sustenance today in the Chamber. From the camps, the Pol Pot regime continued a policy of genocide against the Cambodians, both in the camps and in Cambodia by incursions across the Thai border.
We should remind ourselves that it was the deliberate intention of the Pol Pot regime to remove the intellectuals from the infrastructure of Kampuchea. That caused the problems, which meant that the Vietnamese had to stay in that country until the Cambodians thought it was important for them to withdraw. By the policy of genocide, the regine removed a whole stratum of doctors, academics and other educated and intelligent professionals who would have been required to rebuild Cambodia. The


removal of that stratum resulted in the problems with which Cambodia is still struggling. The Government have neither given nor offered aid to Cambodia that would make up for the removal of that stratum, and it is not as if we do not have the facilities or the people power to have given that type of support.
It is important that we remind ourselves of the comments made by the aid organisations in Cambodia. Frank Judd, the director of Oxfam, described the British Government's policy as "naive". At the end of the debate, the House will share that view. It is naive for the British Government to suppose that military training and aid given to the camps will not help the Khmer Rouge. He compares the British Government's policy of not giving aid inside Cambodia to that of the British people who are donating generously and willingly to the aid organisations working in that country.
On Friday, Mr. Derek Lietch, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), stood in Dundee high street and within two hours had gathered 150 signatures on a petition which simply said that there should be an end to British Government support for the Khmer forces in Cambodia. If people were to go on to the streets outside the House or in any constituency, they would have no difficulty in achieving more than 150 signatures opposing the British Government's present proposals for Cambodia.
If the Minister has a chance to talk to her right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary before she replies to the debate, she might be able to tell me what response he intends to send to the philosophy department at Dundee university. On 7 November, a letter signed by the entire department was sent to the right hon. Gentleman making clear its concern for the plight of the civilian population in Cambodia and its horror and incredulity that we should co-sponsor a resolution in the United Nations that would ultimately leave the Khmer Rouge with some form of control in Cambodia.
During this short debate, it would be wrong not to speak of some of the other problems that need to be dealt with if there is to be a realistic end to the problems faced by the Cambodian people and the whole of the south-east peninsula. We should address ourselves not only to Cambodia but to Vietnam.
There has been reference to the Paris peace conferences. The Paris peace conference that failed in August this year was important for the forces in Cambodia. In the peace talks of 1973, the United States Government agreed to pay $3·2 billion to the Vietnamese people for the war of attrition that was launched against them. Not one cent of that money has been paid to a country that suffered considerable war damage and experienced the first large-scale use of herbicidal warfare. Over 41 million lb of agent orange were dropped on the Vietnamese people between 1961 and 1971. The damage can still be seen among the Vietnamese people and in the defoliation.
The United States and British Governments have made no effort to help the Vietnamese people, despite the fact that the Vietnamese have said that they are prepared to discuss—particularly with the United States Government—ways in which they could be involved in the rebuilding of Vietnam. Only with the economic aid that is dearly required for Vietnam and Cambodia will there be an end to the problems in that area.
Many Opposition Members wish to contribute to the debate, and I am sure that, if they catch your eye, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, we shall hear their experiences of visits to Cambodia and Vietnam. They will be able to tell the House about the determination of the Cambodian and Vietnamese people to live peacefully with their neighbours, if they are allowed. They will not be able to live in peace if we are party to Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge being allowed back into Cambodia.

Mr. Jim Lester: I disagree profoundly with my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who said that this is not a matter of grave urgency. It is a matter of international concern and of profound public concern in this and other countries. As the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, I initiated an Adjournment debate on 1 November. In that debate I pressed for a major debate on this part of the world and I welcome the fact that the Opposition have provided that opportunity.
It is now time for statesmanship of high order. The House should pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker), who has had a profound interest in the subject for many years. Those of us who have followed the matter realise that the position is changing fast. I welcomed my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's reply to me in his statement. However, we need to consider the matter in reverse order to the way that he put it. The first and most critical matter is the United Nations debate on the resolution. Within its five pages, the changes are minimal and insufficient to fulfil the statement to me that it would reflect the changing position.
I remain concerned that our attitude is one of high risk: our ambivalence over our support for Prince Sihanouk and the Cambodian people leaves open the risk that the Khmer Rouge military could return as a result of the civil war. I suspect that, within the American Administration, and—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South said—the Association of the South-East Asian Nations, there are many different views. One has only to witness what the Thai Prime Minister is trying to do to recognise that. I suspect that the same applies to our European partners. We should look carefully at our policies and statements at all times.
I shall ask a straightforward question about this resolution of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench: what would our policy be if Prince Sihanouk resigned tomorrow? He has resigned more than once from different posts. What would our policy be if we built it entirely on Prince Sihanouk? I recognise the worries and tribulations which he has suffered. I have read his book, and it would be a good thing if others read it. His book was written in French and has not been translated into English. I understand the man, what he feels about the Khmer Rouge and the interim period in which he was, and I believe remains, a puppet.
Prince Sihanouk is not the vehicle for a settlement in Kampuchea. He is a creature of China and less independent than Hun Sen, who has often been accused of being a creature of the Vietnamese. However, I know, because I have discussed with Hun Sen, the 100 hours of negotiation which he had with Prince Sihanouk in an effort to bring him back into the Government and reconcile him with the Kampuchean people.
Prince Sihanouk demanded various things, such as a new flag, a return to calling the nation Cambodia instead


of Kampuchea, and a new national anthem. Hun Sen returned to his assembly and, however much it is criticised, he has obtained a new flag which is more attractive than the old one, and the country is now being called Cambodia. The only thing with which he had trouble was the national anthem, because the national assembly in Phnom Penh did not like its slowness and wanted something brighter. That is an example of how things have been done to assist reconciliation, yet each time Prince Sihanouk goes back to Peking, he returns to his original formula involving the Khmer Rouge.
Much of the propaganda, which is still about and which poisoned the Paris conference, is reflected in a letter which Prince Sihanouk wrote to The New York Times on 13 March, following an article by Elizabeth Becker:
It is most regrettable that Ms. Becker confuses the traitor regime of Cambodia that serves only the interests of the Vietnamese Communist colonialists with that of the real Cambodia. The People's Republic of Kampuchea of Hun Sen is not Cambodia; it is merely a creation, and a creature of the expansionist and colonialist Vietnam Communist regime.
Are those the words of settlement? I think not.
Those of us who have had the good fortune to travel to Cambodia twice relatively recently—in 1987 and only a few weeks ago—know that this is not an accurate picture of Hun Sen, Vietnam or the scene within Cambodia. I suspect that the United Kingdom Government and others have a lack of balance in this matter, because they have no appreciation of the reality of what is happening within Cambodia.
Earlier this year, The Bangkok Post of Wednesday 17 May said:
Khmer resistance leader Prince Norodom Sihanouk has said Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping strongly warned him against breaking his alliance with the Khmer Rouge … The Bangkok-based diplomats told AFP Prince Sihanouk had told them Deng had threatened to 'fight' him if he 'expelled the Khmer Rouge'.
Bearing in mind the fact that we have a civil war and a coalition of convenience, my horror is that there will be not just three armies against Hun Sen, but armies against one another: the Khmer Rouge against the Sihanoukists—with whom they have been in conflict in the past. Therefore, it is essential that we have a far better understanding of the problem.
I understand the argument of Prince Sihanouk and the coalition, that, as we have this army, the only way to deal with it is to involve it in the coalition or the interim Government, which is what we are really talking about. I fear that philosophy, because it supports Mao's theory that power grows from the barrel of a gun. That is a dangerous argument to accept.
The only reason why the Khmer Rouge army has not been defeated is because it has had refuge in Thailand. If the Vietnamese had gone after it in Thailand, all hell would have been let loose. It has been sustained, in secret, in China and in Thailand. The only way in which genuinely to judge its military effectiveness would be if the Thais were allowed to pursue the policy which they now seek.
I do not know whether there is any truth in the notion of Sihanoukists being trained. In his policy to the American Administration, Steve Solarz suggested that Prince Sihanouk and his forces should be supplied with lethal aid to give them greater bargaining power in Paris. As I understand it, Steve Solarz changed his mind following the events at Paris, and that aid was not

provided. I suspect that, if we had done any training with Sihanouk forces, it would be more designed to deal with the question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) and to suggest that there was a more equal force between the Khmer Rouge and the Sihanoukists, rather than to train the Sihanoukists to fight the Vietnamese. That is why I constantly refer to the coalition as one of convenience.
We cannot impose, as we tried in Paris, perhaps through diplomatic skills, a quadripartite interim Government. There are three options which we should pursue more deliberately. The first is the Jakarta formula which was negotiated between Hun Sen and Prince Sihanouk. That required that there should be external Khmers, represented by Prince Sihanouk and his coalition Government—within which there could be members of the Khmer Rouge, although members could not stand in their own right. The most politically unacceptable factor in Cambodia, and the one which, Hun Sen says, would stop him delivering an interim Government, would be if that Government included the Khmer Rouge with its armies intact.
We could pursue this Jakarta formula, which was nogotiated and then reneged upon, with the external and internal Khmers in an interim Government for a short period to organise the elections which we all seek. We all—including the internal Government—want to find the quickest way to organise elections which are eligible, free and fair, to enable the Cambodian people to choose their own future Government.
The second option is to back the Prime Minister Chatichai of Thailand in his small steps policy, which is well documented in The Washington Post of 11 November, in which the Thais urge a shift in United States policy and the Prime Minister wants President Bush to be more conciliatory to Hanoi. The Prime Minister says that we should abandon the elusive goal of the power-sharing formula and recognise much more the Vietnamese position. We should get the three or four competing factions in an informal manner to proceed towards the goal of a United Nations team visiting the country to reassure everyone of two facts: first, that the Vietnamese have withdrawn, and secondly that—this is one reason why the Paris talks failed—the settlers are no longer there.
The third option is the Namibia solution, which we all hope and pray has been successful, even as the votes are being counted. In Namibia, the United Nations was able to organise free and fair elections with what was seen to be an illegal regime—the South African regime. The conditions were that the South African military were withdrawn into their barracks and the external military were not allowed to return with guns, although they could return without them. An election was organised, of which we shall all, hopefully, see the results soon.

Mr. Dalyell: On the question of external military, what is the hon. Gentleman's view of alleged British military training of forces in Cambodia? Does he accept that, when Ministers say that they never discuss these matters, that is belied by the fact that press statements were issued in relation to the SAS training for the South Korea olympics, and in relation to Mazambique, Spain and a Foreign Office statement on the work which the British military are rightly carrying out in Colombia. Therefore, there is no precedent for not making statements to the Commons about the military problems.

Mr. Lester: I have read the Jane's Defence Weekly articles, which may or may not be true. I do not want to be sidetracked by this issue, but as I read it, the document revealed basic military training to forces under the control of Prince Sihanouk in Thailand, not Cambodia. Whether that happened, I do not know. However, if it did, I suspect that it was more because Prince Sihanouk, in all his representations to western leaders, has constantly complained about the weakness of his military position in relation to Khmer Rouge. I suspect that if that happened, it was more to give him increased political and military power as against the Khmer Rouge within the coalition than to enable him to be successful in any civil war. In any case, I strongly press all sides to end the civil war—that is paramount.
The resolution to be debated next Wednesday should include a new form of words that would enable the Secretary-General to continue his policy which started in Paris and to initiate a mission to Phnom Penh and Cambodia. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South suggested, that mission should verify the Vietnamese withdrawal and all that should flow from that. It is wrong to move the goalposts as events unfold.
When the Foreign Affairs Select Committee went to Vietnam way back in 1986, we recommended that our policy should be to encourage the normalisation of relationships with America and with other ASEAN countries as soon as possible after the Vietnamese had left Cambodia. We do not need to verify that they have left, but many Governments will not formally recognise that until it has the UN seal of approval. That should be given quickly, so that normalisation can follow and we can end the embargo on Vietnam, which should be rehabilitated within ASEAN, as it has applied to join. The ASEAN nations must put their thinking caps on and make a proper response to that application.
The mission should also verify that there are not 1 million Vietnamese settlers. If one studies carefully what happened in Paris and in the ad hoc committee, one discovers that it all fell apart because of the prejudices of the factions.
The arguments revolved around "genocide" not being allowed to be included in the resolution, and the Vietnamese settlers.
As I have said before, we all know that genocide took place. Those of us who have been to Cambodia have tried hard to discover the 1 million Vietnamese settlers who are paraded by the Chinese and Sihanouk. The commission could verify that; the commission offered by Hun Sen would include Khmer-speaking external Khmers who can tell the difference between Vietnamese and Khmers, and who speak the language.
The resolution should also underline the need for the immediate suspension of hostilities and of arms supplies from all sources—whether from China, Russia or America. I hope that the Americans are not sending the lethal aid that they talked about. It is not good for the British Government to continue to be seen to be siding with the coalition to the exclusion of the internal Government. Such a lack of balance cannot lead to the solution that we all seek.
Many of us have been to the camps on the Thai border. The resolution mentions people being allowed to return freely and safely to their homeland. Most of us who have been to the camps recognise that the people cannot even return freely to the villages around them and certainly not

those between the camps. The condition in the camps has been well documented—we have had to send a special police force to uphold a form of justice there, to replace the barbarism that prevailed before.
To suggest that these camps are good advertisements for the coalition Government and for the way in which they treat people is untrue. We do not know much about the camps under Khmer Rouge control, because until recently no one was allowed into them. Although one receives a tremendous welcome when entering the other two camps, one can detect that they are camps for the rest and rehabilitation of the military forces who have been fighting in Cambodia.
The internal Government's signature on a document allowing these people to return to Cambodia was given to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees long ago, but I suspect that they could not cross the threshold of the country even if they wanted to. In Phnom Penh, we looked carefully at the conditions for the return of the external Khmers and at the work done by the Red Cross with the UNHCR in the form of plans to facilitate the end of the misery of the people in these camps.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's efforts to give increased aid to Cambodia. I know that she had a great deal to do with that and with the much more forthcoming attitude of her predecessor—who began pound-for-pound aid to the non-governmental organisations—and that she is using the heads of NGOs to talk about what can be done on a greater scale. I refer, for instance, to the £250,000 which has been promised to UNICEF and which I hope will go to the hospital that we saw on the Pilger film. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and I have been there and can vouch for its needs.
The United Nations Development Programme report which I mentioned in my Adjournment debate is available; it analyses constructively the desperate needs of Cambodia, despite the fact that the UNDP could not go to Phnom Penh. The report draws a conclusion similar to that to which we came when we visited the country: an aid programme on a sufficient scale cannot be started until there is peace, and until there is confidence among those who have to administer it. A return of the people who are capable of interfacing with those who want to give the aid must come first.
Part of the problem is that the aid programmes, even those from the Soviet Union, have great difficulty finding the necessary intermediaries to transfer the knowledge and aid, thanks to the ravages of Pol Pot and the lack of confidence among many of the people serving in the Administration. It is not enough merely to increase the aid programme—the waterworks are a good example of that. Oxfam has done marvellous work getting the waterworks up to World Health Organisation standards—when the water leaves the waterworks. It then goes into a piping system which is completely destroyed and broken into at every level by people using it instead of wells. Replacing the water system in a city like Phnom Penh is not work for an NGO; it is a matter for a massive infrastructure aid programme.
The Government have recognised that it is important that someone from Bangkok should visit Phnom Penh to see for himself what the hon. Member for Cynon Valley and I have been trying to say since 1987. We are not spokesmen for the Hun Sen Government; I have been around the world enough to be reasonably fair, but I know that the picture in Phnom Penh does not bear out the


propaganda that we hear from Bangkok. The Government in Phnom Penh have struggled against impossible odds to bring about some rehabilitation. A fundamental change has been wrought between 1987 and a few weeks ago. There is a thriving market economy, in which gold and motor cars can be bought; there are new hotels, but there is still a desperate need for infrastructure.
Pagodas are being rebuilt and pagoda education is beginning again—hardly the action of a Stalinist-Communist Government. The rehabilitation process is borne out by the UNDP report.
Hun Sen has been attacked in an underhand way as having been a former member of the Khmer Rouge, but that must be put in context. As he said in his press conference in Phnom Penh, he joined the Khmer nationalist movement with Prince Sihanouk at a time when the Americans backed Lol Non's attempt to take over. Hun Sen sees himself—in this he is supported by the Prime Minister of Thailand—as a nationalist, and that is what he is. Prince Sihanouk was the big fish in that struggle, and Hun Sen was a very small fish, so it is not good enough to cast doubts on his sincerity and on what he has tried to do by linking him with the Khmer Rouge and its terrible activities.
As we have continually said, Britain can play a role if it sets out to do so. We are the only member of the Security Council which has not been directly involved in the conflict and we chaired the committee which finally settled the Vietnam war. I beg my right hon. Friend the Minister to go to the Foreign Secretary and to all members of her team and press them to pay much more lively attention to what has been said in the House. They should bring about a dramatic change of policy and should do a great deal more to achieve the result that we all seek.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: When I saw the answer that the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) was given by the Foreign Secretary last week, I thought that it signified some change of mood by the Government, in that they were willing to give some aid to Cambodia. However, when I heard the Chamberlainesque speech by the Minister, my doubts about Government policy returned very rapidly.
At least the Vietnamese have left Cambodia. In his answer to the hon. Member for Broxtowe, the Foreign Secretary said as much—that the Government accepted that the Vietnamese had left. However, we have heard speeches from the Minister and from the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) the main tenor of which was how nasty the Vietnamese were to invade Cambodia and get rid of the murderous Pol Pot. When I hear such speeches, I wonder where we are going.
The right hon. Member for Blackpool, South talked about free elections. How can there be free elections in the middle of a civil war? The danger that many people thought would arise if the Vietnamese withdrew from Cambodia is unfolding before our eyes. There are reports of 17,000 people already killed and of the town of Pailin already occupied by the murderous legions of Pol Pot.

Sir Peter Blaker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wareing: I shall not give way. Other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
The forces of Pol Pot are now marching on Battambang. It is a regional capital and the second largest city in Cambodia. Poor and desperate as it is, Cambodia depends greatly on its jute production and Battambang has Cambodia's only factory for making the sacks in which the jute is wrapped and sent to market. The factory is financed by Oxfam and there are British people in the town, Oxfam people working on an irrigation scheme. If that town falls, it is widely rumoured that the Khmer Rouge has said that it will go full belt for a military solution.
How can we talk about free elections and about the Vietnamese at a time when armies similar to those of Hitler in 1940 are sweeping across Cambodia? It can only be a matter of weeks before they reach Phnom Penh and once again impose the foul Pol Pot regime. The people held responsible for that will be those who take no action now and just laugh about the situation, the people who will go to the United Nations next Wednesday and refuse to take any action whatever.
In August I visited the camps at Khao-I-Dang and Rythisen on the border with Thailand. I pay tribute to the gallant British nurses who are working in the hospital there. They are from Bristol, Gloucester, Manchester and Stockport. Those young girls are doing a marvellous job in that hospital, as I know the hon. Member for Broxtowe and my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) have seen for themselves. A Finnish women surgeon working on her own is dealing with all the necessary amputations in an area ravaged by minefields, which from time to time suffers shellfire. A young Frenchman is training the Cambodians to make wheelchairs and artificial limbs from the very poor materials that they have.
Those people require assistance, and so far no practical assistance has been given by the British Government to Cambodians on either side of the border. However, the silence of the Minister confirms that aid is going to the Khmer Rouge by way of training its allies in weaponry. We know that is true because the Government remain silent about it and silence speaks volumes.
There are 140,000 refugees in the camps around the Thailand-Cambodia border. Of those refugees, no fewer than 59—35 per cent. are under the age of 24. That means that most of them remember very little about Cambodia. They were very young or not born at all when Pol Pot ravaged their homeland. The site 2 camp of Rythisen has the largest concentration of Cambodians outside Phnom Penh. They are living in a relatively urban community. There should be steady repatriation to Cambodia, because those people need to be trained as farmers, the only occupation that will be open to them. We need an economic development package, not a military training package, to train those young people. The fact that they are predominantly young people reflects what happened in the killing fields of Cambodia, when their elder brothers and older people were killed in the Hitlerite fashion that we know as the hallmark of Pol Pot.
The Khmer Rouge are undoubtedly being assisted by the Chinese and encouraged by the United States and Britain by the silence and their intervention in attempts to train people to carry weapons into Cambodia. China probably more than any other country was responsible for the collapse of the peace talks in Paris. The Chinese


Government were the perpetrators of the massacre in Tiananmen square and China's Foreign Minister is quoted in the South China Morning Post as having insisted that any change in Cambodia would mean the end of the existing Government in Phnom Penh and the installation of a coalition Government which must, as far as China is concerned, include the Khmer Rouge.
There seemed some sign in the Foreign Secretary's reply on Wednesday that the Government will look again at their policy. The right hon. Member for Blackpool, South talked about "Pilgerisation", but it is not just that, because on television we saw the actuality of conditions for the people in Cambodia, the life of the people in the camps. British people recognise the truth when they see it; that is why they will put increasing pressure on their Members of Parliament to make the Government change their mind.
The Government have a golden opportunity on Wednesday to raise the whole issue again in the United Nations General Assembly. I fear that, in a few weeks, we shall be talking about Phnom Penh as if it were Paris after 14 June 1940, when the Nazis occupied it. There is a serious war and a crisis in Cambodia and the legions of Pol Pot are not standing aside and saying, "Let us wait and see if we can have free elections." They are getting on with their murderous job of returning to power. Our Government have an opportunity to speak for what the British people want, which is justice for the people of Cambodia.

Mr. Chris Mullin: I thought that the Minister's contribution was shameful. It seriously damaged his justified reputation as a decent human being. I appreciate that he did not write it, but he should have had the strength to refuse to read out what was clearly written by a civil servant. I trust that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)—he is not here at the moment—takes office, there will be a shakeup of the south-east Asia department of the Foreign and Commonwealth office.
The low point of the Minister's speech was his attempt to provide a history of events in Kampuchea but to omit the fact that the Vietnamese invasion was in response to what the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) called "an incident" on the border. This incident was an attempt by the Khmer Rouge to annexe the western provinces of Vietnam. I know some of the people who were living there at that time, and I know what they saw. This attempt resulted in the butchery of thousands of women and children and similar incidents took place on the border with Thailand.
Whoever wrote the Minister's speech knows that such events occurred. The Minister does not know that. As he cheerfully admitted in the Adjournment debate the other day, he knows not the slightest thing about this issue, as it is not within his remit. It is fundamental to the dishonesty that ran throughout his speech that he attempted to skip over the history of those events, and did not mention them. I invite the House to contemplate how Her Majesty's Government might respond if a foreign power attempted to annexe the southern counties of England, and in the process butchered thousands of our citizens. I wonder whether we would have described that as "an incident".
The second low point of the Minister's speech was his refusal to respond to the determined attempts by my right

hon. Friend the Member for Gorton to get from him the facts about the presence of the SAS on the Thai-Cambodian border. We have been told that that is only a token gesture. Jane's Defence Weekly has said that there are only six or seven of them and that they are training people to put mines on roads and to blow up some of the bridges that Oxfam is helping the people to build. No doubt we have made that token gesture as a result of great pressure from the United States, just as, when the Vietnam war was at its height, we were under great pressure to send British service men there to make the war look respectable. I believe that we did and that the bodies of a number of SAS people are still to be found in the soil of Vietnam, but I shall pass over that.
Like other hon. Members, I have been to Cambodia. I went for the first time in August 1973 and my experience was a little different from that of the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South because I strayed off the cocktail party circuit. At the time, Phnom Penh was surrounded and American B52s were burning the country down village by village. I saw with my own eyes what they were doing. I woke up at night and the whole city was shaking because of the bombs, and the sky was lit up. They were bombing up to the suburbs. That bombing was controlled from the windowless bunker which passed for the American embassy.
The Americans were caught at it. I remember an American journalist, Sylvanna Foa, accidentally twiddling with the knobs of her portable radio and discovering that the instructions to the pilots of the B52s were coming directly from the American embassy, and could be heard on the radio frequency. That is possibly the only time that diplomats accredited to a country were attempting to burn it down.
I also vividly remember the American Government's principal problem in this case—their ignorance. The Americans must be mentioned frequently because we were only following on behind them in this as in many other cases. They were amazingly ignorant even then about the events in the country that they were burning down. I remember sitting in that windowless bunker in Phnom Penh in August 1973 and an American first secretary describing to me how the Khmer Rouge did not exist. He developed the theme at some length.
We have to pinch ourselves to remember that the official policy was that it was a Vietnamese invasion, although a handful of indigenous Khmer might be involved. He told me that Saloth Sar, which is Pol Pot's real name, Hou Youn, Hu Nim and Kieu Samphan, who were the original leaders of the Khmer Rouge, had been murdered by Sihanouk. However, there was a film of Sihanouk visiting what were described as the liberated zones. A film-maker himself, he had filmed himself embracing the three "ghosts" as they were known. That film would have been available, but when I put that to the first secretary, he said, "We think that one of them may be alive, but the other two were actors impersonating the leaders." That was the line 18 months before Phnom Penh fell. The Americans were still denying that the Khmer Rouge existed.
The irony is that now the people whom they were bombing—the Khmer Rouge—and the Sihanouk supporters are those whom the Americans are helping to get back to power. We have to pinch ourselves to remember—the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) referred to this—that Sihanouk was removed in a military coup run


by the Americans. The country was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the United States at that time. The Americans replaced him with the lunatic Marshal Lon Nol—a man who believed that the Communists were strapping rockets to rabbits and sending them into Government installations.
I remember all that because I was there and I remember going back in 1980 shortly after Pol Pot had left town, courtesy of the Vietnamese. By then, Cambodia was a wholly isolated country. The scenes that one saw have been recorded elsewhere, so I shall not repeat them, but I remember many things. I remember the day, in February 1980, when I flew out of Phnom Penh. I turned on the radio in Bangkok and heard a British Foreign Office Minister speaking at a conference in Geneva about Vietnamese atrocities in Cambodia. When I got back to London, I rang up the man and asked him for chapter and verse of evidence for that statement. He became extremely flustered and said that he had left his notes in Geneva. We can see that the knowledge among Foreign Office Ministers has not improved.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mullin: I will not give way, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. Time is short and those on the Front Bench wish to speak. I have waited rather a long time to get this off my chest.

Mr. Arnold: And I am still waiting.

Mr. Mullin: I have travelled extensively in those regions and one of the questions that occurs to me is this. Where does the Foreign Office get its information? Does it come from the British embassy in Hanoi? I know many of the people there. They are decent, intelligent good people and I believe that they are reporting back accurately on what they see around them. The information driving the Government to this ludicrous policy is thus unlikely to come from that source. Does it come from the British embassy in Bangkok? The ambassador in Bangkok, Mr. Tonkin, was the former ambassador in Hanoi. I have not met him since he went to Bangkok, but he was a decent intelligent man then and I believe that he and his staff are reporting accurately. So the information does not come from Bangkok.
The answer is that the information comes on the telex from the United States. One day a telex from Washington will give Mr. Colvin and the other civil servants in the south-east Asia department—the architects of this policy—permission to change the line, and it will change. A Minister will come running down here and read another brief that he does not wholly understand. I am sad to say that we are a satellite state, and this is one of the most humiliating examples of our satellite status. We are the Bulgaria of western Europe, but at a time when glasnost is running through Bulgaria one would like to think that it might also extend to the western satellites of the United States.
I leave the House with one question. If, as Ministers repeatly assure us, Pol Pot is unpopular—everyone assures us that they have nothing to do with him—and nobody loves him and nobody has anything to do with him, how has he survived in exile over the past decade? Let no one

say that it is all to do with the Chinese. China has no contiguous border with Cambodia. The weapons that come from China are transported in ships which come from the former American air base at Utapao. They are taken in Thai army trucks to the various Khmer Rouge camps along the Cambodian border. The Thai army, which is a partial subsidiary of the United States, pauses only to take its rake-off from the Chinese weapons.
Where does the food come from? It comes from the United Nations border relief operation. Tony Jackson of Oxfam has recently returned from one of the Khmer Rouge camps on the border. He saw United Nations food being packed for onward transmission to the interior.
Where is Pol Pot now? It is no secret that the last recorded sightings of Pol Pot were at the Cardoman mountains inside Cambodia. He has with him a force of about 6,000 men. He and his men are being sustained by United Nations rations. We all contribute food, including the British, American and Japanese Governments. All western countries have contributed to the supplies of food that sustain the Khmer Rouge.
The factor that has sustained the Khmer Rouge most during the past decade has been diplomatic recognition, and a great deal of arm twisting has taken place to secure that. The right hon. Member for Blackpool, South mentioned ASEAN. The ASEAN countries understand that their satellite status is dependent on continuing to toe the line on an extremely unpopular issue.
When I passed through Bangkok last September I stopped off at the Thai Prime Minister's residence for a few hours. It was made clear to me that Thailand was doing everything possible to get out from under, but it cannot do so because it is afraid of the military. Who runs the Thai military? The United States has more control over it than the Thai Prime Minister, as has been demonstrated by the repeated military coups in Thailand over the past 30 years. The Thais are being leaned upon to keep the line.
How can Pol Pot and the other Khmer Rouge leaders come and go from Thailand? Do they use a motor boat to land on some abandoned island? No, they come through Don Muang airport, the main international airport in Bangkok. They use the military section. I am told that Pol Pot has twice been hospitalised in Bangkok. I am told also that at one stage he and the other leaders of the Khmer Rouge had a suite in the Erawan hotel. That hotel has since been demolished. Friends of mine in Bangkok have seen Khmer Rouge leaders in the Liberty hotel in Bangkok. Everybody knows what is going on and it is fraudulent for Ministers to pretend otherwise.
We see a shameful state of affairs. We all realise that we are just bit players, but Britain is being degraded. Decent people of all political persuasions around the world consider that we are being brought into disrespect. I appreciate that whichever Minister replies to the debate will have to read out another brief written by Mr. Colvin and his friends. I hope that when the Ministers return to the Foreign Office they will give him a bollocking and tell him that he should go to the department of folding deck chairs before too long. I trust that their policy on this issue will change.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: It is a pity that the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker), who challenged the authenticity, veracity and knowledge


of my right hon. and hon. Friends, was not present to hear some of the speeches of my right hon. and hon. Friends for the past 45 minutes.
We have heard precisely what the British Government's policy is on Cambodia. It is clear that Cambodia is being punished because of a grudge against Vietnam. That has been made clear by those who have spoken from the Government Benches. The continuing punishment and isolation of Cambodia can be seen in its children. Those of us who have been to Cambodia on two occasions, such as the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and I, have seen children in the paediatric hospital in Phnom Penh lying in corridors because there are no beds for them. Others are lying in their mothers' laps because there is nowhere else to put them.
Some of the children we saw were desperately ill. There are children crying in hospital everywhere. Many die from conditions as simple as diarrhoea. They do not get the proper medical care that they should receive. One in five children die of preventable diseases before the age of five. Many die because they drink contaminated water. We have heard described this afternoon what Pol Pot did to Phnom Penh. He went into the city with his Khmer Rouge troops in 1975 and smashed the waterworks.
Sir Robert Jackson, a former United Nations Under-Secretary-General, wrote:
In a disaster operation, three phases are normally distinguished: relief, rehabilitation, reconstruction and development. In the case of Kampuchea, not even the phase of relief has been advanced to what in other humanitarian operations would be regarded as 'just adequate'. At best it can be said that the lives of the people have been preserved after that holocaust, but no more.
Cambodia is the only country in the world to be denied United Nations development aid, which provides such necessities as a clean water supply, decent sanitation, tractors and irrigation pumps. Cambodia receives practically none of those things because of a 10-year blockade that is led by the United States and China, which is supported by ASEAN and Britain. If the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South would listen, he would understand that that was the mention of ASEAN that he was so anxious to hear.
Few Governments have tried to help by giving money to non-governmental organisations. Oxfam and other agencies have done a tremendous job in Cambodia. As the hon. Member for Broxtowe said, Oxfam is supplying and installing water pumps in rural areas. That work has been exceptionally important, but we can provide only a fraction of what Cambodia really needs.
In June 1989—this is an example of how the United Nations has been unable to carry out its proper function—the United Nations Development Programme sent an exploratory mission to Cambodia. It never got further than Bangkok, because the United States and Japan vetoed the mission.
The hon. Member for Broxtowe and I visited Cambodia for a second time in. two years:. We have seen how much the country has changed in that period. Many people pin their faith on the Prime Minister of Cambodia, Hun Sen. They believe that he has the most lenient regime in Cambodian modern history. Everyone acknowledges that he is the driving force behind the reforms that have taken place.
The legal system and the constitution have been reformed. If anyone thinks that the hon. Member for Broxtowe and I are stooges of the Cambodian

Government, let him or her understand that on two occasions we put searching questions to the Cambodian Government on behalf of Amnesty International because of our concern about human rights in the country. Over the past two years, there have been remarkable improvements, following some of our earlier criticisms. That is true especially of the practice of holding people in detention without trial. The Prime Minister said that he was considering ways of allowing Amnesty International and other international agencies such as the Red Cross to visit prisons in Cambodia.
First, however, Hun Sen has to fight the civil war. He reiterated time after time that he was not heading a Communist regime. He asked, "Tell us where you can see it?" He wants Cambodia to be a non-aligned state. He asked, "Why is it that the West continues to punish the victims, the Cambodian people?"
The United States and the West force Cambodia to depend on the eastern bloc. That is the only way in which the country can breathe. That is a stupid policy and it is high time that the British Government and other western Governments recognised it. I received a telex from the Cambodian Government today, in which they repeat their invitation for a United Nations mission to verify withdrawal. In the event that there is any doubt in anyone's mind, they are inviting that verification.
We have heard much this afternoon of John Pilger. I think that he is responsible more than anyone else for raising the conscience of the British people on this issue. He went to the Foreign Office to discover who were the reasonable people among the Khmer Rouge whom the Prime Minister has mentioned so often. Not to put too fine a point on it, the Minister of State with responsibility for South-East Asia was caught napping. He has the same relationship with South-East Asia as Alice in Wonderland has with nuclear fission.
When asked who were the reasonable elements in the Khmer Rouge, he um-ed and ah-ed and said, "The ones that Prince Sihanouk can work with." "But you must know their names," pressed Mr. Pilger, and the noble Lord's face crumpled like an autumn leaf and he gasped like a dying goldfish. His Foreign Office heavy stepped in to protect him: "Stop this now," he shouted at the cameras. "This is not the way that we were led to believe the line of questioning would go. I think the Minister is doing remarkably well under an aggressive line of questioning that we were not told we had to brief the Minister for." In other words: "It is not fair at all, because we had briefed him to tell a different set of lies."
On 8 November, the Foreign Secretary told the House, the British Press and the public that United Kingdom policy on Cambodia was being modified and that those modifications would be introduced into the draft resolution to be debated at the United Nations on Wednesday 15 November. As my hon. Friends have said, that resolution has been altered by only two words.
Not only has the Foreign Secretary attempted to mislead the House and the country, but we are faced with two conflicting statements of United Kingdom policy on Cambodia. First, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister state that Vietnam has withdrawn its combat units from Cambodia, but the draft resolution states only that it deplores
foreign armed intervention and occupation in Kampuchea.
The Foreign Secretary's statement cites the Khmer Rouge six times and makes clear the Government's condemnation


and opposition to their return to power. However, the draft resolution, which the United Kingdom is cosponsoring on Wednesday, contains no explicit condemnation of the Khmer Rouge, nor any statement condemning its return to power. Indeed, there is no reference by name to the Khmer Rouge anywhere in the United Nations resolution.
Such deviations would not make much difference if all that was at stake was a ritual debate at the United Nations, but the implications of such a resolution which disregards the changes which have taken place in Cambodia ensures that the Khmer Rouge continue to enjoy the prestige of their United Nations seat.
The Foreign Secretary's statement—
We have never given and will never give, support of any kind to the Khmer Rouge"—
is a deliberate attempt to mislead the House. We voted three times—in 1979, 1980 and 1981—to seat the Khmer Rouge at the United Nations. Since 1982, we have not challenged the seating of the coalition controlled by the Khmer Rouge at the United Nations.
That is why a challenge to those who occupy that seat at the United Nations is an important symbol to the people of Cambodia. They cannot understand, and nor can the Opposition, why nations such as Britain should be party to such a situation. It is as though West Germany's seat at the United Nations was occupied by Himmler, and the swastika flew at New York. Britain has therefore voted to keep the Khmer Rouge in the United Nations, ensuring it international recognition and prestige, access to funds and a right of veto in major United Nations humanitarian agencies.
As we have heard, the coalition is made up of former Khmer Rouge murderers and include Khieu Samphan who was head of state and presided over the mass killings in 1976–80, and Thioun Prasith, a top Khmer Rouge official during the killing fields years, whose job was to tempt back from overseas Khmer intellectuals, who were then murdered in Cambodia.
In his statement on 8 November, the Foreign Secretary said that the credentials committee of the United Nations had approved the credentials of democratic Kampuchea and that was the end of the matter. But again, that is not entirely accurate. Any country, at any time during this week's debate, can challenge the representation of Cambodia by war criminals who were their murderers only 10 years ago. Many western countries are looking for a major player at the United Nations to take a lead. Britain has a chance to speak on behalf of a small nation that has been bombed, murdered and devastated over the past 20 years.
Since when has Britain slavishly supported mass murderers? It needs only one country—how wonderful it would be if Britain were that country—to stand up to the Chinese and American pressure which is silencing everyone else. The United Kingdom has been on the wrong side of this dirty war. Over the past 10 years, the policy of the West has been to get the Vietnamese to leave. Now we admit that they have gone, it is no longer logical to support the seating of the coalition at the United Nations or the resolution.
We need a radical rethink of our policy to release aid to Cambodia and to Vietnam. It is now illogical and dangerous to pursue the old American policy of bleeding Vietnam white on the battlefields of Cambodia.
The Khmer Rouge have taken Pailin, an important strategic town. Their forces are reported to be about 30 miles from Battambang, the second largest city in Cambodia. We are not dealing with a fanciful possibility; we are standing on the sidelines watching mass murderers on the march. The killing has started again. According to a Chinese source, 17,000 are dead and the Khmer Rouge have knocked out a crack Government battalion, and they intend to purge 300,000 Cambodians. Even more sinister, Pol Pot is back in Cambodia. Oxfam representatives who returned from Thailand at the weekend have been told that Pol Pot is in Cambodia and is in charge of 6,000 troops, having successfully captured Pailin. The border refugee camps are preparing for war and sending soldiers to the front. There is no doubt that those camps are a prime source of sanctuary and supplies for the Khmer Rouge.
In August 1988, the Prime Minister, in a visit to the camps on the Thai-Cambodia border, made a ringing declaration:
The Vietnamese must go, but we must not allow the return of the terrible Pol Pot regime in their place. No civilised country could accept that.
The Vietnamese have gone and we have a chance at the United Nations this week to show whether we are a civilised country. There is still time. If ever there was a time for consensus, this is it. I appeal to Conservative Members to heed the common-sense voices of the British people. Three and a half thousand people have written to the Foreign Secretary, 1,500 have written to the Prime Minister and hundreds have written to right hon. and hon. Members. Unless we act, we shall be accused of a shameful and shocking stain on Britain's foreign policy.
Finally, I shall quote one paragraph from a letter I received:
I write to you as a private individual. I am a member of no political party and have no vested interest. I am only a human being … Cambodia receives no aid, Vietnam receives no aid, yet Pol Pot receives aid. Great Britain is a founder member of the United Nations and a member of the Security Council yet we do nothing. A nation that talks so proudly of previous conflicts against tyranny sits back whilst the key to the killing fields is returned to Pol Pot. I implore you. In the name of humanity, DO SOMETHING.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), I very much welcome the debate. It is important to place on the record exactly what is happening, and in the short time available, I shall do my best to do so.
Our objective is clear and consistent—an independent and sovereign Cambodia. We want to see peace and stability restored to Cambodia through a comprehensive political settlement, which must create the conditions in which its people can elect a Government of their choice free from fear of Khmer Rouge atrocities, foreign occupation or civil war. Our repugnance of the Pol Pot/Khmer Rouge regime is well known. We have never given it, and will never give it, support of any kind.
In the light of the false statements made by the hon. Members for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), I want to put in context the humanitarian help that we are giving. Humanitarian aid is


being given to people inside Cambodia. In 1988, we contributed £250,000 to the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund programme on humanitarian activities in Cambodia, and £100,000 to a special appeal by the Food and Agriculture Organisation. We continue to help, and last week we announced a further £250,000 for UNICEF. In the past year, we have contributed nearly £1 million to UNICEF, the FAO and British nongovernmental organisations, which is being distributed to people inside Cambodia. That sum was in addition to the £13·7 million that was given to Cambodians in the border area.
After the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, Britain was the first country to give humanitarian aid to the camps. We believe that that was important and right. Hon. Members asked whether humanitarian aid for people in the camps is being given to groups other than the Khmer Rouge. We rely on assurances from NGOs and international organisations that British aid is being given directly to non-Communist refugees. Indeed, it is given only to camps controlled by the two non-Communist factions led by Son Sann and Prince Sihanouk. At the Foreign Secretaries' meeting tomorrow, I shall follow that up with British NGOs and other organisations to ensure that aid is being given only to non-Communist refugees in the camps.
We shall continue to help through the United Nations border relief operation, by which help is given to non-Communist refugees, and in other ways to ensure that the needs of the Cambodian people inside and outside Cambodia are met. We are determined that humanitarian aid should be given to those who truly need it, so I am considering the position anew, which I began to do last week before the Foreign Secretary's announcement.

Mr. Dalyell: Statements were made about British military help for South Korea during the olympic games and for help with the drugs problem in Colombia. What is the position on British military aid for Cambodia? Will the Minister clear this up?

Mrs. Chalker: That question has been asked many times before in the House. Both the Labour Government and the present Government——

Mr. Dalyell: South Korea, Mozambique——

Mrs. Chalker: Will the hon. Gentleman let me finish?
We have been helping Colombia with its serious drugs problem. The question asked about Cambodia concerns the special forces. Neither previous Labour Governments nor this Conservative Government have commented on the use of special forces, and I have no intention of doing so now.
May I deal with the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), who made a valuable speech this evening and who has shown his care and concern for the Cambodian people? I may not agree with all that my hon. Friend says, but I thank him for all the work that he has done.
The answer to the question that my hon. Friend posed on 8 November is that there has been no fundamental policy shift; the statement does not contain the untruths that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) suggested. The statement was clear, and we all know, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe said, that

circumstances have changed in Cambodia. We have responded to take account of those changes. The current position in Cambodia is complex and changes frequently, but we must respond to it. Our most effective contribution—the answer given by the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe endorsed this—is to concentrate not only on providing humanitarian aid but on promoting a comprehensive political settlement.
Many hon. Members mentioned Cambodia's seat at the United Nations. Britain's record is consistent. We voted for the annual United Nations General Assembly resolution, which was drafted by the Association of South-East Asian Nations, because we believed it right to do so. Our aim is a peaceful, independent Cambodia, whose people can decide their own future. With our friends and partners, we sought and agreed certain changes to this year's draft resolution. We made it clear not only that circumstances have changed but that we wished to remove any implication that we support the Khmer Rouge. We do not and shall not do so.
This year's amended resolution has attracted 75 co-sponsors, because it endorses the need for a comprehensive political settlement in Cambodia and condemns the Pol Pot regime. Voting in previous years suggests that well over 100 United Nations member states are likely to vote for it in the General Assembly debate this week. I do not believe that greater changes would have received such widespread support. The debate will not address Cambodia's representation at the United Nations, which was settled on 17 October when the General Assembly adopted, without a vote, the report of the United Nations credentials committee for the forthcoming year. At a future United Nations session, we shall have to return to the question of who occupies Cambodia's seat.
Only two countries stated any reservations in the report of the credentials committee—Byelorussia, which is one of the ways that Russia has three votes, and Laos. They stated a number of reservations on behalf of themselves and their allies about the acceptance of Democratic Kampuchea's credentials. No other country stated reservations——

Mr. Wareing: Why not?

Mrs. Chalker: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me to finish the point?
We stated that our position on credentials did not imply support for Pol Pot or the Khmer Rouge, and we made it absolutely clear that we wished to return to the subject. It is not true that the occupation of Cambodia's UN seat by the coalition Government of Democratic Cambodia prevents the UN from contributing humanitarian relief inside Cambodia. UNICEF, the World Food Programme and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees are active, and I am certain that they will take further action.
We believe that a comprehensive political settlement that will enable the Cambodian people to elect a Government of their choice is the best way of achieving peace. If we were to exclude, as some people have suggested, the Khmer Rouge from the peace process, it would drive them further into a guerrilla war and would make free and fair elections impossible, which is why we have backed the judgment of those who support all four


factions getting around the table. Clearly, there is no place in Cambodia's future for Pol Pot or the murderous Khmer Rouge.
If Prince Sihanouk's judgment changed or he were no longer there, we would still need to bring all the parties to the conference table. Britain will give humanitarian aid directly to the people of Cambodia, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in his answer last week. Equally vital is our work, beyond any United Nations debate, with our partners for a comprehensive political settlement. It has to be——

Mr. Derek Foster: rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes, 192, Noes 258.

Division No. 402]
[7 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Douglas, Dick


Allen, Graham
Duffy, A. E. P.


Anderson, Donald
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Eadie, Alexander


Armstrong, Hilary
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Ashton, Joe
Fatchett, Derek


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Fearn, Ronald


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Beckett, Margaret
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Bell, Stuart
Fisher, Mark


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Flannery, Martin


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Flynn, Paul


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Derek


Blair, Tony
Fraser, John


Boateng, Paul
Fyfe, Maria


Boyes, Roland
Galloway, George


Bradley, Keith
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
George, Bruce


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Buchan, Norman
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Buckley, George J.
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Caborn, Richard
Grocott, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Heffer, Eric S.


Canavan, Dennis
Henderson, Doug


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hinchliffe, David


Cartwright, John
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clay, Bob
Home Robertson, John


Clelland, David
Hood, Jimmy


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Coleman, Donald
Hoyle, Doug


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cousins, Jim
Illsley, Eric


Cox, Tom
Ingram, Adam


Crowther, Stan
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cunningham, Dr John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Dalyell, Tam
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kennedy, Charles


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Kirkwood, Archy


Dewar, Donald
Lambie, David


Dixon, Don
Leadbitter, Ted





Leighton, Ron
Radice, Giles


Lewis, Terry
Randall, Stuart


Litherland, Robert
Redmond, Martin


Livingstone, Ken
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Reid, Dr John


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Richardson, Jo


Loyden, Eddie
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


McAllion, John
Rogers, Allan


McAvoy, Thomas
Rooker, Jeff


McCartney, Ian
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Rowlands, Ted


McFall, John
Ruddock, Joan


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Sedgemore, Brian


McKelvey, William
Sheerman, Barry


McLeish, Henry
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Maclennan, Robert
Short, Clare


McWilliam, John
Sillars, Jim


Madden, Max
Skinner, Dennis


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Martlew, Eric
Snape, Peter


Maxton, John
Soley, Clive


Meacher, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Michael, Alun
Stott, Roger


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Morgan, Rhodri
Turner, Dennis


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Vaz, Keith


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wall, Pat


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wallace, James


Mullin, Chris
Wareing, Robert N.


Murphy, Paul
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


O'Brien, William
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


O'Neill, Martin
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wilson, Brian


Patchett, Terry
Winnick, David


Pendry, Tom
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Pike, Peter L.
Worthington, Tony


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)



Prescott, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Primarolo, Dawn
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Ken Eastham.


Quin, Ms Joyce





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bowis, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Alexander, Richard
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brazier, Julian


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bright, Graham


Amess, David
Browne, John (Winchester)


Amos, Alan
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Arbuthnot, James
Buck, Sir Antony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Burns, Simon


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Butler, Chris


Ashby, David
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Aspinwall, Jack
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkinson, David
Carrington, Matthew


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Carttiss, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Chapman, Sydney


Batiste, Spencer
Chope, Christopher


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bellingham, Henry
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bendall, Vivian
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Benyon, W.
Colvin, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Conway, Derek


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Couchman, James


Body, Sir Richard
Cran, James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Critchley, Julian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Boswell, Tim
Curry, David


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Day, Stephen






Dicks, Terry
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Dorrell, Stephen
Maclean, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Dover, Den
Madel, David


Dunn, Bob
Malins, Humfrey


Durant, Tony
Mans, Keith


Dykes, Hugh
Maples, John


Eggar, Tim
Marland, Paul


Emery, Sir Peter
Marlow, Tony


Fallon, Michael
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Forman, Nigel
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Forth, Eric
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus
Mellor, David


Freeman, Roger
Meyer, Sir Anthony


French, Douglas
Mills, Iain


Gale, Roger
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gardiner, George
Mitchell, Sir David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Moate, Roger


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Monro, Sir Hector


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Gregory, Conal
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Neale, Gerrard


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Nelson, Anthony


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Neubert, Michael


Hanley, Jeremy
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hannam, John
Nicholls, Patrick


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Harris, David
Norris, Steve


Haselhurst, Alan
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hayes, Jerry
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Paice, James


Hayward, Robert
Patnick, Irvine


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Heddle, John
Pawsey, James


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hind, Kenneth
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Portillo, Michael


Howard, Michael
Price, Sir David


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Rathbone, Tim


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Rhodes James, Robert


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hunter, Andrew
Rost, Peter


Irvine, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Jack, Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Jackson, Robert
Ryder, Richard


Janman, Tim
Sackville, Hon Tom


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Key, Robert
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shersby, Michael


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sims, Roger


Knapman, Roger
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Knowles, Michael
Speed, Keith


Knox, David
Speller, Tony


Lang, Ian
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Latham, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lawrence, Ivan
Squire, Robin


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lee, John (Pendle)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stern, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stevens, Lewis


Lilley, Peter
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lord, Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Sumberg, David


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Summerson, Hugo





Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Waller, Gary


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Ward, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Watts, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wheeler, John


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Widdecombe, Ann


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wiggin, Jerry


Thorne, Neil
Wilkinson, John


Thornton, Malcolm
Wilshire, David


Thurnham, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Winterton, Nicholas


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Wolfson, Mark


Trippier, David
Wood, Timothy


Trotter, Neville
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Twinn, Dr Ian
Yeo, Tim


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wakeham, Rt Hon John



Waldegrave, Hon William
Tellers for the Noes:


Walden, George
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Nicholas Baker.


Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 189.

Division No. 403]
[7.14 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Conway, Derek


Aitken, Jonathan
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Alexander, Richard
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Couchman, James


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cran, James


Amess, David
Critchley, Julian


Amos, Alan
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Arbuthnot, James
Curry, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Day, Stephen


Ashby, David
Dicks, Terry


Aspinwall, Jack
Dorrell, Stephen


Atkinson, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dover, Den


Baldry, Tony
Dunn, Bob


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Durant, Tony


Batiste, Spencer
Dykes, Hugh


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Eggar, Tim


Bellingham, Henry
Emery, Sir Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Fallon, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fookes, Dame Janet


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Forman, Nigel


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Forth, Eric


Body, Sir Richard
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Freeman, Roger


Boscawen, Hon Robert
French, Douglas


Boswell, Tim
Gale, Roger


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Gardiner, George


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bowis, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brazier, Julian
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bright, Graham
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Buck, Sir Antony
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Butler, Chris
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Carrington, Matthew
Harris, David


Carttiss, Michael
Haselhurst, Alan


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hayes, Jerry


Chapman, Sydney
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Chope, Christopher
Hayward, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Heddle, John


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Colvin, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.






Hind, Kenneth
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howard, Michael
Portillo, Michael


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Price, Sir David


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Rathbone, Tim


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rhodes James, Robert


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hunter, Andrew
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Irvine, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Jack, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Jackson, Robert
Sackville, Hon Tom


Janman, Tim
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Key, Robert
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shersby, Michael


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sims, Roger


Knapman, Roger
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Knowles, Michael
Speed, Keith


Knox, David
Speller, Tony


Lang, Ian
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Latham, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lawrence, Ivan
Squire, Robin


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lee, John (Pendle)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stern, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stevens, Lewis


Lightbown, David
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lilley, Peter
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lord, Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Sumberg, David


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Summerson, Hugo


Maclean, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Madel, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Malins, Humfrey
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mans, Keith
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Maples, John
Thorne, Neil


Marlow, Tony
Thornton, Malcolm


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thurnham, Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mellor, David
Trippier, David


Mills, Iain
Trotter, Neville


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mitchell, Sir David
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moate, Roger
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Monro, Sir Hector
Waldegrave, Hon William


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Walden, George


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Waller, Gary


Morrison, Sir Charles
Ward, John


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Watts, John


Neale, Gerrard
Wheeler, John


Nelson, Anthony
Widdecombe, Ann


Neubert, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wilkinson, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Wilshire, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wolfson, Mark


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wood, Timothy


Norris, Steve
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Yeo, Tim


Oppenheim, Phillip
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Paice, James



Patnick, Irvine
Tellers for the Ayes:


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Nicholas Baker.


Pawsey, James



Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Armstrong, Hilary


Allen, Graham
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy


Anderson, Donald
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ashton, Joe





Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Ingram, Adam


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Beckett, Margaret
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bell, Stuart
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Bermingham, Gerald
Kennedy, Charles


Blair, Tony
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Boateng, Paul
Kirkwood, Archy


Boyes, Roland
Lambie, David


Bradley, Keith
Leadbitter, Ted


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Lewis, Terry


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Litherland, Robert


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Livingstone, Ken


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Buchan, Norman
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Buckley, George J.
Loyden, Eddie


Caborn, Richard
McAllion, John


Callaghan, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
McCartney, Ian


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Macdonald, Calum A.


Canavan, Dennis
McFall, John


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McKelvey, William


Clay, Bob
McLeish, Henry


Clelland. David
Maclennan, Robert


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McWilliam, John


Coleman, Donald
Madden, Max


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Marek, Dr John


Corbett, Robin
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cousins, Jim
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cox, Tom
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Crowther, Stan
Martlew, Eric


Cryer, Bob
Maxton, John


Cunningham, Dr John
Meacher, Michael


Dalyell, Tam
Michael, Alun


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Dewar, Donald
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Dixon, Don
Morgan, Rhodri


Douglas, Dick
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Mowlam, Marjorie


Eadie, Alexander
Mullin, Chris


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Murphy, Paul


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
O'Brien, William


Fatchett, Derek
O'Neill, Martin


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Patchett, Terry


Flannery, Martin
Pendry, Tom


Flynn, Paul
Pike, Peter L.


Foster, Derek
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Fraser, John
Prescott, John


Fyfe, Maria
Primarolo, Dawn


Galloway, George
Quin, Ms Joyce


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Radice, Giles


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Randall, Stuart


George, Bruce
Redmond, Martin


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Golding, Mrs Llin
Reid, Dr John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Richardson, Jo


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Grocott, Bruce
Rogers, Allan


Hardy, Peter
Rooker, Jeff


Harman, Ms Harriet
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Heffer, Eric S.
Rowlands, Ted


Henderson, Doug
Ruddock, Joan


Hinchliffe, David
Sedgemore, Brian


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Sheerman, Barry


Home Robertson, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hood, Jimmy
Short, Clare


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Sillars, Jim


Hoyle, Doug
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Illsley, Eric
Snape, Peter






Soley, Clive
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Spearing, Nigel
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Stott, Roger
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)
Wilson, Brian


Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
Winnick, David


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Turner, Dennis
Worthington, Tony


Vaz, Keith



Wall, Pat
Tellers for the Noes:


Wallace, James
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Ken Eastham.


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)



Wareing, Robert N.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Government's consistent refusal to give support to either the PRK or the murderous Khmer Rouge; commends its commitment to finding a peaceful and comprehensive settlement endorsed by the Cambodian people; and welcomes the increased assistance which the Government is providing for the innocent victims of this tragic conflict.

Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has been brought to my attention that a Birmingham evening paper has reported that there have been behind-the-scenes negotiations about the Bill. Would not such a report cast a slur on the Chairman of Ways and Means, who, as I understand it, should adopt a completely neutral view? The report suggested that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) used his influence to bring this motion on the Bill before the House and that if he had not, he would have found it more difficult to obtain support in the House. That implies that the hon. Gentleman has special influence.
I am sure that that must be wrong, because any promoter of a private Bill has the same influence as any other and can obtain the same prominence for his Bill. I am sure that the article is misleading. Will you assure us that it is fallacious and that the hon. Gentleman has not done a deal behind closed doors and thereby trampled on the rights of Parliament?

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I shall deal with this point first. I am not sure whether the hon. Member is saying that there might be a prima facie breach of privilege. If so, he knows the procedure and should write to Mr. Speaker. The sooner that we continue with the debate, the sooner all will be revealed.

Mr. Denis Howell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you advise the House whether it is in order for one of my hon. Friends to advise all Labour Members to go home and not to participate in the private business, as he did in a loud voice in the Division Lobby just now? I find that action reprehensible.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter of tactics and has nothing to do with the Chair.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you place on record the fact that there is no obligation on hon. Members to attend and listen to debates prior to voting? Moreover, there is never an official view on private business. There is never a view from a Government Whip or an Opposition Whip, so it is left to individual Members to advise their colleagues of the importance to be attached to that business. As I said earlier today, we ought to be debating the changing boundaries of Europe rather than the wasting of ratepayers' money on a road race. The European people will not understand the way in which the British Parliament is conducting its business today.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At long last the House has shown its willingness to debate a private Bill at a sensible time. As a rule, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) rages and rants about the rights of the House and private Bills, yet now we find that he is an avid reader of the Birmingham Post all of a sudden. That is a very good thing, because it is a first-class newspaper but I do not know what that publication has to do with Bradford—unless the hon. Gentleman's remarks emanated from some other Birmingham Member.
The Chairman of Ways and Means and the Panel should be applauded for the fact that, at long last, private Bills are given prime time. I do not wish to offend the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) whom I look upon as a friend in a Birmingham sense, but his claim that we should be discussing the problems of Europe—or Cambodia or outer Mongolia or outer space—rather then the problems of Birmingham and his imputation of the motives of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) should bring shame to the hon. Gentleman's eyes and tears to ours.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are already launched into the debate. It would be far better to conduct it in the regular manner than by means of points of order.

Mr. Peter Snape: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not normal for me to intervene at such an early stage, but I must comment on the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who alleged that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King)—has used his influence improperly——

Mr. Roger King: I have not.

Mr. Snape: I have not finished yet.
The implication was that the hon. Gentleman used his influence to bring the Bill before us tonight. I must rush to the hon. Gentleman's defence. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South that, if the hon. Member for Northfield had any influence, he would long since have arrived on the Government Front Bench—a role that he has been seeking with passion since the day he was elected. I cannot really believe that he has any influence.
On the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who said that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) had been standing in the Division Lobby urging hon. Members to go home, I can only say, as an ex-Whip, that it strikes me as odd that someone of my hon. Friend's competence should waste his time on such duties, which are extraneous, to say the least. It has always

appeared to me that hon. Members do not need too much encouragement to leave this place when they have the opportunity. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr has done much to change matters.

Mr. Frank Haynes: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a point of order?

Mr. Haynes: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a point of order.
I have been working. I have been a Teller at the door of the Lobby. I do not know what has been going on in there, but I do know what has been happening for the past few moments. I am a bit surprised that you did not challenge the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark). We are wasting time and we should get on with the business.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am supporting the occupant of the Chair. I am a little surprised that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, did not have a go at the hon. Member for Selly Oak for wasting time. I am always here, but he is hardly ever here. More often than not he is flying around in a jumbo jet somewhere. I am a little surprised that you let him carry on because he was wasting time and he is usually one to complain about waste of time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) is seeking to catch my eye and I now call him. Mr. Roger King.

Mr. Roger King: I am somewhat flattered by the accusations concerning my ability to influence the operations of the House. I only wish that that were true, but those who know will know that I have not been party to any negotiations directly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Indirectly?"]—or even indirectly. I have had nothing to do with them. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) does me an honour by even suggesting that I have such influence. What the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said is true to an extent. That is why I sit on the second row—I am but one row from the front.

Ms. Clare Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. King: It is early in my remarks and I do not want to take more than a few moments. Last time we debated the Bill the hon. Lady rightly pointed out that we had taken an awful long time to explain its intricacies and had allowed a large number of interventions, which cost her the opportunity to speak. Nevertheless, I give way to the hon. Lady.

Ms. Short: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to say different things in the House and in the Birmingham press. Will he confirm the report in the Birmingham press which said that delicate negotiations behind the scenes had brought the time forward so that there would be 100 hon. Members present to carry the Bill? Will he confirm that he said:
I do not anticipate any problems in getting 100 colleagues to support this measure. We are very, very confident.
He should not say different things here and to the press, as that is dishonourable behaviour.

Mr. King: I am confident that the necessary number of hon. Members will be here. There has been a change in the timetable, but I stand by what I said—in terms of negotiations, I have not been involved. That is perfectly fair and honest.
Let us move on to the object of our debate, which is the progress of the Bill. The subject has received considerable debate over the years. The Birmingham City Council (No. 1) Bill, which authorised motor racing in Birmingham, received much debate, with further debate on Second Reading and in Committee. On Second Reading, on Tuesday 18 April 1989, 145 Members voted for the Bill to be read a Second time and 24 voted against. That was a significant majority and reflects the overwhelming desire on the part of the city of Birmingham. Out of 65 councillors who voted, 30 Labour councillors and 31 Conservative councillors were in favour of the Bill. Sixteen Conservative and Labour councillors were against and four members of minority parties registered their disapproval.
At that time there were eight petitioners objecting to the Bill. In the usual manner, the promoters—the city council—have discussed objections with all the petitioners prepared to negotiate. Undertakings were reached with all but three.
The Committee met in May, with seven days of hearings and one site visit. The Committee heard evidence from representatives of the National and Local Government Officers Association, a residents association from the area of the race circuit and a residents association from somewhat further afield. The outcome of the deliberations was a number of amendments to the Bill, accepted by the promoter and to be considered by the House should the Bill be carried over. These are:
1. An acceptance that four days of racing would only be for Grand Prix racing, and that a three day event would be part of a Bank Holiday.
2. The reinstituting of strict liability for personal injuries or damage to property, except for competitors.
3. Streets being closed from 7.30 am to 7.30 pm, rather than 6.00 am to 8.00 pm
as originally proposed.
4. Equipment should be dismantled within 10 days after the event, not 20. Moreover, all work should take place between 8 am and 8 pm.
5. A reinstituting of the agreement to pay all police costs." In addition——

Mr. Rooker: If the hon. Gentleman has finished his list——

Mr. King: No, I have not.
In addition, the Committee has the agreement of the
city council to the following 11 undertakings:
1. That, for a period of four weeks before the race and two weeks afterwards, the Council sets up a telephone call-line to provide full information to residents in relation to the road race and to record any complaints regarding the road race, so that immediate action may be taken.
2. That there should be an increased provision of security patrols both for local residents and businesses.
3. There should be an increased provision of parking areas for local residents when the circuit streets are closed, to reduce the distance between residents and their cars.
4. That religious worship should take place during the racing period without any undue interference.
5. That the River-Rea subway crossing should be brought into use as a circuit crossing point at the earliest opportunity, and that it should so constructed as to enable disabled persons to cross at this point.
6. That underpass crossings should be made more welcoming, kept clean and well lit, and be clearly marked.

7. That the disabled should not at any point he prejudiced in gaining access to and from the road race area.
8. That in any of its future building projects, or major repair works to existing buildings, within close proximity to the race circuit, the Council should consider installing double glazing.
9. That the Council should strive to introduce permanent, rather than temporary, beautification features on the circuit.
10. That there should be an increased number of manned crossing gates in the circuit area.
11. That noise levels should be measured at various parts of the circuit, and that the records of such measurements should be available for public consultation.
We believe that those amendments and undertakings go a considerable way towards easing the inconvenience of local residents and businesses.

Mr. Rooker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has finished his list. He was speaking rather quickly and I did not hear anything about stopping the illegal use of ratepayers' money to fund the revenue account. We have had undertakings before. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) is effectively in charge of the Bill. If he has not been involved in the negotiations about the Bill, but he promoted its Second Reading, can he tell us who has been involved in the negotiations, so that we know where to direct our representations?

Mr. King: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Rooker: A few moments ago, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), the hon. Gentleman said that he had not been involved in any negotiations. He clearly implied that other people or other hon. Members had been involved. The hon. Member for Northfield is the promoters' man on the Floor of the House. He moved the Bill and he is effectively in charge of it. Who has been responsible in this House for the negotiations about the Bill and its timetable?

Mr. King: The city council, as is its right, made representations. I was expecting the Bill to be debated at a different time this week, but was informed that it would be debated this evening. I cannot go into the exact details, because I was not privy to them.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does not my hon. Friend find the allegations from Opposition Members of some kind of impropriety, almost of dishonesty, quite amazing? Has not the council in our city of Birmingham, through no will of ours, a large Labour majority? Is it right that hon. Members should accuse a Labour council of dishonesty? Is it possible that we should agree with Labour Members that it is dishonest? Is this not a proper Bill for the benefit of Birmingham, and is that why all the Conservative Members representing Birmingham constituencies are doing their best to help it to make progress against the opposition from some of the laggards on the Opposition Benches?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend has made his point extremely well.

Ms. Short: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) heard what I said. Perhaps he has not read Friday's edition of the Birmingham Post. It is clear from that article that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) is claiming full knowledge of the negotiations to bring the time for the Bill forward so that he could—[Interruption] It is obvious from the article that the hon. Member for Northfield is


claiming full knowledge of the negotiations and is confident that the Bill will be carried. He has said in the House today that he knows nothing about that. In that case, he was dishonest, either to the Birmingham Post or in the Chamber today.

Mr. King: I should have thought that the best service that anyone could provide in the debate would be to allow it to proceed without examining that particular issue. Nothing will be gained from that, except a loss of time to debate the issues which undoubtedly the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) would like to raise.
All matters relating to private Bills are very provisional. We are all anxious to ascertain when such a measure will come before the House. As a sponsor of the Bill, it would be part of my job to try to determine when the debate will take place. The support and the hon. Members who want to speak must be organised and we must adjust our timetable accordingly. I was given to understand that the Bill would be debated on a different day this week. However, presumably as a result of normal parliamentary procedures that are adopted in relation to any private Bill, the timetable was adjusted to this evening.
Clearly negotiations took place between certain individuals—no doubt supporters of the Bill—who made their voices adequately known. I know that there is no record of any letter from me or any verbal approach to anyone in authority in order to change the timetable. When the timetable has been changed, as it has, that must have happened as a result of negotiations.

Mr. Snape: I am always anxious to help the hon. Gentleman, as he knows. As the hon. Gentleman so wisely said, perhaps he did not put anything down on paper. However, perhaps he would agree that a conversation took place, perhaps with Mr. Nigel Hastilow, the esteemed reporter from the Birmingham Post, during which the hon. Gentleman might have verballed Mr. Hastilow that perhaps his influence was so great in this place that the business had been changed. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that might not be an unreal version of what happened last Thursday?

Mr. King: I wish that I could confirm that I have that kind of power and authority. Alas, I have not. I was not a party to negotiations. I remained deliberately on one side because I did not want to have these aspersions cast upon me. Negotiations have presumably taken place between some individuals, and perhaps some people here today, were part and parcel of them, but I cannot say who they are.

Mr. Barry Porter: As someone who is disinterested, but not uninterested, in the progress of the Bill, does the city council of Birmingham with its Labour majority supported by a Conservative minority want this Bill? Do the majority of Birmingham Members want the Bill? If that is so, I might be one of the 100 hon. Members required to see it through the Lobby at 10 pm. No one has asked me about it, but if that is the case, I do not believe that Birmingham Members are doing their great city much good by these childish exchanges.

Mr. King: That is exactly the case. It is a city of Birmingham Bill. It has all-party support, and the city leader, Sir Richard Knowles, is 100 per cent. behind it, as

are all other city leaders and the Conservative opposition group. The reasons for that support are self-evident, having regard to the four events that have taken place so far and what they have brought to the city. They have indirectly made the city a centre of attraction. There has been wide international media coverage. Investment in the city of Birmingham is now about £1·5 billion—a substantial investment—entirely due to the city council's attitude to attracting business and investment from all over the globe. The council is to be congratulated.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) referred to the financial arrangements of the Bill. They were not discussed in Committee. In the hon. Gentleman's opinion, that matter must be debated further. The carry-over motion will allow us to do just that next year. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be as keen as ever to introduce the necessary amendments and give us his ideas on how the Bill should be changed for the better. He will not serve the House by delaying the Bill's passage if he wants to debate its financial aspects.

Mr. Rooker: There is an excellent case for starting the Bill again and for not agreeing the carry-over motion. The questions that Opposition Members have asked about finance have been asked by senior Birmingham Tories. The hon. Gentleman owes it to his hon. Friends to raise the same doubts about financial arrangements as the Opposition have raised. Those doubts were raised also by Conservative members of the council. Labour Members opposed the Bill in the first place by a free vote. The matter is not neat and tidy. The Bill would benefit from our starting it again.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the carry-over motion. Will he explain the different paragraphs, particularly the last one, and tell us how much has been spent to get the Bill this far? As that is a necessary detail of the carry-over motion, an explanation should be put on the record.

Mr. King: I do not have the exact figures to hand, but I will try to obtain them before the end of the debate and let the hon. Gentleman know, if he is successful in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not doubt that the costs are considerable, which is why the city of Birmingham would not relish starting the passage of the Bill again. The hon. Gentleman's tactics would not be warmly applauded by the ratepayers or community charge payers. The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the Conservative group on the city of Birmingham council will not necessarily give the Labour council a blank cheque. They have their own interests in ensuring accountability and are of the opinion that the motor race must continue to develop and produce a profit for the city. The motor race has been successful in terms of investment in the city.
I do not dispute that the Conservative opposition on the council are not happy about certain financial aspects. However, they are 100 per cent. behind continuing the event and see no reason why their detailed financial concerns should cause the measure to be dropped and the motor race not allowed to continue.

Mr. Robin Corbett: The hon. Gentleman was saying that he is unaware of the allocation of fees for the passage of both Bills. I understand that the figure agreed by the city council was £100,000. There has been no subsequent discussion or decision on whether extra moneys must be allocated.

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) for those figures. I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr has duly noted them.
The city of Birmingham believes that it is worth continuing this event and that, as the Bill wends its way through Parliament, all aspects of the motor race will be discussed. Many worthwhile amendments have already been undertaken or promised by the local authority to make the event more relevant and more responsive to the local community.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The hon. Gentleman listed several decisions that were made in Committee. It would have been helpful if copies of those decisions were available. Certain points arise from the council's minutes of 21 June. Obviously, changes occurred as the Committee proceeded. There is a list of 12 points, but the hon. Gentleman mentioned only 11. A change occurred later. There is no published list. We have had only a verbal presentation, and that seems to be a general problem with private Bills.
The hon. Gentleman's most important point about the Birmingham (No. 2) Bill is the possibility of a grand prix being held in Birmingham. He mentioned a four-day race ending on a Sunday. That matter was decided by a majority in Committee, whereas the other decisions were unanimous.

Mr. King: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. We are not debating the Committee's report. That will occur in due course if consideration of the Bill is allowed to be carried over into the next Session. The list that I read out is the list to which the city has undertaken to commit itself as a result of the Committee's deliberations. Of course, it is subject to amendment and ratification by the House. I have been trying to say that real progress has been made.
If the House agrees that consideration of the Birmingham (No. 2) Bill should be carried over to the next Session, all requirements and other items in respect of the grand prix and the Committee's decision by casting vote will be fully discussed.

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman is effectively in charge of the Bill, but he has no list of possible changes. Opposition Members have received no communication from the council about the Bill since Second Reading, other than a brief exchange of letters. There has been nothing of substance. The hon. Gentleman has said that certain matters will be debated. Would the hon. Gentleman prefer to debate changes rather than allow the Bill to pass without further debate? Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to say that he would rather do that? The hon. Gentleman knows, as does everyone else, that the only way in which the changes can be debated is for us to object procedurally each time the Bill comes before the House so that we can create space in the parliamentary programme. However, whenever my hon. Friends and I do that, we are pilloried by prejudiced and spiteful media and by senior Tory councillors in Birmingham for simply carrying out our parliamentary duties.

Mr. King: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's last point. The press can look after themselves, but the comments and criticisms made by the Conservatives on Birmingham city council have been most discreet. They

could have been much more vociferous if they had had a mind. The supporters of the Bill are ever mindful that, even at this late stage, we could all move together, as Birmingham Members of Parliament. We are mindful of the changes that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) introduced to ensure that the Bill received a long stint of examination in the Select Committee. Indeed, the Bill is all the better for that. The recommendations that have been made were put forward after a lengthy period of deliberation and if there are any further changes that the hon. Gentleman would like to introduce, I am sure that he will have the opportunity of making his views known.

Mr. Terry Davis: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will remember that he has made that statement once before. When the previous Bill passed through the House and ultimately became an Act of Parliament, the hon. Gentleman said that it had been much improved as a result of the opposition of my hon. Friends and myself. He said that the amendment that was introduced by Sir Reginald Eyre, on behalf of the city council, which stated that the race would stop if it had not made a cumulative profit after five years, much improved the Bill, yet he has connived at sidestepping that Act.

Mr. King: I do not accept that. I know that we have faced a contradiction or a difficulty in the meeting of minds about the financial structure of the motor race. The hon. Gentleman voiced his grave concern about that on Second Reading, and the city has obviously taken note of the points that he made. No doubt if the House is agreeable to the carry-over motion, he will have the opportunity at a later stage to continue to voice his points of view and to seek to make changes wherever and whenever he can. I understand and fully appreciate his right so to do.,
My point is that the city has tried to reach accommodation with all the people who have petitioned for change, and we may wait and see——

Mr. Terry Davis: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, will he tell the House that the amendments pressed on the Bill are to be welcomed because they improve it? The hon. Gentleman made the same sort of statement four years ago and is now party to sidestepping that provision. Indeed, "sidestepping" is the word used by the city solicitor.

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman knows why this No. 2 Bill is before the House this evening. When the original Bill was approved by the House, we were not aware of the change in the rules that the international motor racing body, FISA, was to introduce into the form of motor racing staged by the city. I refer to the necessity of having two days for practice and one day for the actual race when, at the moment, all that we can have is one day of practice and one day for the race. It is for that reason and that reason alone that this Bill has come before the House.
At the same time, we are taking the opportunity of reviewing the circuit and making some alterations to it. It is also a good opportunity for petitioners and for those who have experienced problems with the motor race to come forward and to ask the city council to agree to a number of amendments. Indeed, the city has accepted such amendments. That is the way in which the Bill has been improved. As a result, it is a better Bill and more responsive to the citizens of Birmingham as a whole.

Mr. Denis Howell: On the narrow point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), which is effectively the only business before the House tonight, we are considering whether the Bill, which has now had its Second Reading and Committee stages should—because of the difficulties of the parliamentary timetable—be carried over. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Bill were carried over, the rights of hon. Members to move amendments and to make objections would properly continue, so that all that hon. Members are doing by objecting to the Bill this evening is frustrating the normal parliamentary procedures of democracy? They are stopping the Bill from being argued on its merits, although I accept that that is what my hon. Friends say that they wish to do, but the end of that process will be to cost the city of Birmingham and its ratepayers another £100,000 if we start again—and that is both parliamentary and economic nonsense.

Mr. King: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) is perfectly right. One difficulty that I face at the moment is asking for a carry-over motion when we are only halfway through the Bill's progress. Of course, there are questions still to be asked and points still to be raised—I do not doubt that for one moment—and that is precisely why we need the carry-over motion. It will mean that those points can be debated during our remaining sittings on the Bill——

Mr. Terry Davis: rose——

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Not again.

Mr. Davis: Yes, again, because this is an important matter. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) is making one of his rare appearances in the Chamber, but I want to press his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), who has been here throughout our debates. The hon. Member for Northfield has said that he is proposing the carry-over motion to allow my hon. Friends and me to put forward our amendments and objections to the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman is so anxious for the Bill to be thoroughly debated, why did he move the closure motion to prevent my hon. Friends from taking part in the last debate?

Mr. King: At the end of our Second Reading debate, it was clear that that debate was centring on the financial aspects——

Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman did not give me a chance to speak then.

Mr. King: Obviously, those financial aspects caused concern to some hon. Members. During that debate we had an element of disruption because of the number of questions asked although I was happy to seek to address those questions because the Bill is contentious and Opposition Members had every right to intervene to ask their many and varied questions during my description of the Bill——

Ms. Short: rose——

Mr. King: I shall give way, but this is the last time.

Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that I waited in the Chamber throughout the whole of his hour-long speech and that I was the only hon. Member seeking to speak through whose constituency the race

runs. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that my constituents have strong feelings about this. Yet he was a party to preventing me from speaking and to preventing the House from hearing what my constituents had to say.

Mr. King: The record will show that there were about 24 interventions in my speech when I presented the No. 2 Bill. The hon. Lady made several interventions on a variety of matters and I was delighted to assist her in every way that I could. It is not for me to comment on the Chair and who is called, but other hon. Members were called on that occasion. Personally, I am sorry that the hon. Lady was not called, but it is not within my power to seek to have her called. Nevertheless, if the opportunity presents itself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I very much hope that the hon. Lady will catch your eye later this evening.
The measure having come all this way, the best course that anyone could adopt would be to allow the No. 2 Bill to be carried over into the next Session so that the many points still at issue will receive due and careful consideration. To abandon the Bill now would be disappointing for the city of Birmingham and its citizens, who in the last four events of the super prix have seen the benefits that it can bring. One accepts that this matter is not without controversy, but I believe that the measures taken by the city and those already laid down in the Bill—which, of course, need to be ratified and confirmed—show that the city wants to stage the event with the willing support and agreement of its citizens.

Ms. Clare Short: It is my strong view that the House should not give permission for the Bill to be carried over into the next Session, because it is deeply flawed. The power already exists for a two-day road race to be held in Birmingham, but that power requires the road race to break even in five years. I shall describe later how that requirement of the House has been disregarded. The flawed Bill before us gives the power necessary to hold a four-day road race, with no requirement to break even. That is a disgrace, and it is one major reason why the Bill should not be carried over.
My first objection to the carry-over motion, however, relates to the way in which the Bill has been handled in the House. It was introduced by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King). He spoke for more than an hour, and I sat through his speech waiting to make my own. It is not good enough for that hon. Gentleman to talk about the number of interventions in his speech—in fact there were far more interventions in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who spoke for a shorter time.

Mr. Denis Howell: I counted the number of interventions that my hon. Friend made in my speech. In my 30 years in the House, I have never had so many interventions in such a short speech. I am glad, however, that my hon. Friend has had the opportunity to speak tonight.

Ms. Short: My right hon. Friend is obviously not listening. I said that there were far more interventions in his speech—I agree that I made many of them—than in the speech of the hon. Member for Northfield.
The hon. Member for Northfield spoke at enormous length, and a large part of his speech was irrelevant to the Bill. He went on and on about the convention centre and


the failed olympic bid—I do not want to trample on the feelings of my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath—and said how everything was hunky-dory in Birmingham. That was before the publication of the document on poverty in Birmingham, which shows that half the people in that city live in serious poverty. The hon. Gentleman, however, went on and on with his glorious picture of Birmingham, which was absolutely irrelevant to the road race. The hon. Gentleman took up too much time in that debate, and he was largely responsible for the views of my constituents not being put to the House before the Bill went into Committee.
In that debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) spoke about the finances behind the Bill, which are an important part of our objection to it. After my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill spoke, my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath and the Minister made brief speeches. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) then got up and was just getting into his stride when who came into the Chamber but the Government Chief Whip. He walked up to the hon. Member for Yardley, whose speech came to an abrupt halt. The hon. Gentleman nearly fell on the floor the instant the Chief Whip went up to him. The hon. Gentleman was obviously instructed to bring his speech to a rapid conclusion, which he did with total obedience——

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: And loyalty to Birmingham.

Ms. Short: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman intended to make a long speech, but when the Chief Whip appeared and started to walk up the steps towards him he brought his remarks to a close instantly. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perr Barr (Mr. Rooker) then stood up to speak, but he did not get much of a chance to do so before the closure was moved.
I do not wish to embarrass the Chair in any way, but it had been intimated—if I may put it like that—that, because the hon. Member for Northfield had spoken at such length and because the views of the people who live in the area where the road race takes place had not been put before the House, it was unlikely that the closure would be granted. The Chief Whip then arrived, however, went up to the hon. Member for Yardley and then appeared to have words with the people who make decisions about whether a closure can be given. Shortly afterwards, that closure was given.
The procedural way in which the Bill has been handled has been unacceptable. It is obvious that the Government Chief Whip organised the votes for the closure to get the Bill through the Chamber. The husband of the Prime Minister has a financial interest in Halfords, which is a major sponsor of the road race. He has been to Birmingham to show his support for the road race, and he enjoyed the hospitality, of which there is plenty, given to prestigious visitors to the road race. I believe that there has been improper interference with the procedures of this House. There has not been proper consideration of the interests of the people of Birmingham, who are opposed to the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Is my hon. Friend telling the House that Burmah Oil is short for Birmingham Oil?

Ms. Short: No, I am not. I was just saying that the Prime Minister's husband has a financial interest in the company that sponsors the road race. It is obvious from the proceedings in the previous debate that the Chief Whip organised to abbreviate the debate to ensure that there was a closure, which was overwhelmingly carried by Conservative Members.

Mr. Corbett: I appreciate the complaints that my hon. Friend makes about the way in which the House handles such matters. My hon. Friend should go back a step, however, to recall that the Bill was approved on a free vote by the majority of elected councillors of the city of Birmingham. Is my hon. Friend saying that those councillors, irrespective of party, totally ignored the wishes of the people they represent?

Ms. Short: No, I am not. I do not know how much detailed information some councillors had when they voted in favour of the Bill. I doubt that they have had as much detailed information about the finances and about some of the undertakings given in the House when the first Bill was passed as is available to hon. Members because of procedures relating to the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Rooker: Through my hon. Friend, perhaps I can ask my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who is my Member of Parliament if he has forgotten, that he voted against the closure on Second Reading.

Mr. Harry Barnes: rose——

Ms. Short: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Barnes: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is not Birmingham city council that decides whether to have a Bill, but the House, and only after a discussion of the representations made to it? Hon. Members discuss the ins and outs and they make their decision.

Ms. Short: My hon. Friend is right. If it was in the power of Birmingham city council to run a road race, it could do so and it would be accountable to its voters. We have the power to vote for or against the Bill, and therefore we have a duty to do our best by the people of Birmingham. We must protect their interests to ensure that some of the truth is told, as opposed to the hype and the fibs about the profitability deriving from the Bill. I consider that it is my duty to use my platform in the Chamber to put the truth on record because so many misleading statements have been made.

Mr. Corbett: rose——

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: rose——

Ms. Short: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Corbett: Let me make it clear that, although I support the Bill, I voted against the closure because I thought that it had been inadequately discussed. I am all in favour of adequate discussion.

Ms. Short: As I recollect, my hon. Friend thought it was important that I should have the opportunity to speak. Whether I spoke was not important: what was important was that I was the only person who had been in touch with people living on the circuit of that race. They feel passionately about the Bill, but there was no chance to put


their views on record. My hon. Friend voted against the closure, because he agreed that their views should be known.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I am always fascinated to hear Socialists talking about Socialists. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) has spelt out the majority held by the Labour party on Birmingham city council. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) has used such words as "untruths" and "lies" and has said, "If only the truth could be told." Does she think that the Labour leadership of our great city has told untruths? We have said so more than once, but she has always said that we were wrong. Why should she be believed on this one issue?

Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the Bill has cross-party support as well as cross-party opposition in Birmingham——

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: No thanks to you.

Ms. Short: Perhaps there is no opposition to it on the Conservative Benches. We all know how craven they are in the face of their Chief Whip. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that Conservative councillors from Selly Oak voted against the Bill at the area sub-committee meeting shortly before the debate in April——

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: They are Lefties like you.

Ms. Short: I think that the hon. Member for Selly Oak has enjoyed himself too much earlier today——

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I have not had a chance.

Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman is not listening as seriously as he might to what I am saying. The Bill is not about Conservative or Labour support—it has cross-party support. From reading press reports, however, it seems to me that the support of senior Conservative councillors in Birmingham for the Bill and the race is eroding. They are making more and more qualified statements about how worried they are about money and whether the race should go on as it is because they recognise that it is becoming increasingly unpopular. We must deal with what is best for the people of Birmingham, rather than cheap points misleading people about where the support comes from. There is support and opposition from both Labour and Conservative councillors.

Dame Jill Knight: It was a pity that the hon. Lady was not called in the former debate, and I am glad that you called her this evening, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
It is important that, when we discuss these matters with the eyes of our city upon us, we are absolutely accurate in what we say. I have received a number of letters from my constituents who are also on the route. I have been impressed with the way that every complaint that I have received, whether it concerns access, noise or drunkenness on the day of the race, has been properly investigated and all my constituents have been seen. If there were to be the erosion of support about which the hon. Lady speaks, we would all have received letters. I have had no such letters suggesting any erosion of support.

Ms. Short: I have no wish to be impolite to the hon. Lady, but I have had meetings with the residents associations which have come together over the Bill. They have complained about the number of requests they have made to meet the hon. Lady and her refusal to meet them.

Dame Jill Knight: That is not true.

Ms. Short: That has been put to me by a significant number of people from various residents associations.
My first objection to the Bill going any further concerns the way that it has been handled. Before it went into Committee, the people of Ladywood and those living around the circuit did not have a chance to have their views put before the House. Procedurally, that was wrong. For that reason alone, we should start again and do things properly.
Secondly, there has been improper pressure from the Conservative Chief Whip to get the Bill through. That is an improper interference in the fair-minded consideration of the Bill and the interests of the people of Birmingham. For those two procedural reasons it is my strong view that the Bill should not be carried over and that we should, if necessary, and if it is not possible to persuade the city council to think again, start properly in the next Session and consider the Bill in a better way with less party political interference for reasons which might be improper.
The people of Ladywood feel strongly about the Bill, and I shall attempt to put some of their views on record. That is difficult, as I have with me a large number of letters—just some of the many I have received. My judgment is that about 50 per cent. are opposed to the whole road race. The majority of people say that it could be better run and that they are worried about money. They do not say that the two-day road race should be abolished. However, there is no doubt that the overwhelming opinion of people living near the circuit is that the Bill dealing with the four-day road race should not be passed.
I will not read out all the letters, as that would detain the House for too long, but I shall read a letter from a headmaster at a local school. I will not name him.

Mr. Denis Howell: Why not?

Ms. Short: I do not know whether to name him or not. I am afraid that a matter of privilege has been put before the House because of the treatment by the city council of one individual who was brave enough to try to put information before the House about the operation of the Bill. The overwhelming and disproportionate support for the Bill among senior figures in the city council means that they might use their powers to damage the interests of individuals who dare to tell the truth about the Bill.
The headmaster wrote to me saying that he wanted to enlist my support against any extension of the road race. He said:
This disruption of our school environment is without precedent in the United Kingdom. It would never get any sort of acceptance in Edgbaston, Solihull, Sutton Coldfield or around the streets of Dulwich. It is a grotesque example of how people who lack political clout are treated with contempt and are walked over for the sake of commercial interest and/or vainglory. It has very little to do with genuine civic pride. For a city whose educational provision is £10 per pupil below the national average and also whose teacher-pupil ratios are amongst the worst in England, there are clearly more important ways for the city to raise its self-esteem.
On behalf of the parents and Governors of this school, I urge you to speak most strongly against the Bill coming soon before Parliament.


That was in April, and I attempted to do as he asked.
The letter went on to say that that school and others in the area are currently
fighting for our survival as inner-city secondary schools. The main problem causing the demise of falling rolls is the perception parents have of this inner-city environment ie, it is one to be moved away from as soon as possible. Is it any wonder that so many parents believe they must seek a 'better' social-educational environment for their 11-plus age children.".

Mr. Roger King: rose——

Ms. Short: Let me finish the letter.
It goes on:
The superprix and/or its extension only reinforces the perception that local parents have of this area—it is one on which they are treated with contempt—even that which they have is taken away ie, the right to some peace and quiet and not to be exploited by others.".

Mr. King: The hon. Lady explained in that letter exactly what the motor race is all about. She says that people cannot wait to leave the rundown inner city, because nothing happens. The city is trying to develop something that is exciting for the inner city, which involves the local community and which identifies the area as one having attractions. Some of the commitments—the repair of underpasses, the landscaping of areas and the improvement of the housing stock in the environment of the motor race circuit—are exactly the things about which the headmaster is complaining. The city is doing those things thanks to the Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill.

Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman is welcome to have the race in Northfield. He can say as much as he likes about the purposes behind the Bill, but I know better and meet more frequently the people who live there. They do not see it as he does. The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech, but I can tell him, the House and the Government that, if there is any chance of moving the road race to Northfield, the people of Ladywood will vote for it overwhelmingly. [Interruption.] Does my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath wish to intervene?

Mr. Denis Howell: Yes, since I have been invited. Every public opinion poll taken in the vicinity of the road race has produced a majority in favour of it.

Ms. Short: If my right hon. Friend checked more carefully, he would see that the city council claims that only just half those living in the locality support the extension to four days. If one looks at the way the question was asked, one will see it was asked misleadingly. Anyone who knows anything about opinion polling—I presume everyone in the House takes some interest in it—will know that, if a question is asked in a distorted way, one can receive different answers.

Mr. Bevan: As the hon. Lady claims that the question was posed in such a way as to show bias, can she tell us what the question said?

Ms. Short: Unfortunately, I do not have—[Laughter.] I have an enormous pile of papers and if the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) waited for the answer, he might be able to laugh. Surely it is only polite to wait. I have a stack of papers in the Library including that particular set of questions and answers, which I looked at half an hour ago. However, I cannot, without that piece of paper, tell the hon. Gentleman the exact

words of the question. When I looked at them, I thought again what I had thought when I first looked at them, which was that the question was inviting a certain answer. The question was something like: given that this road race is so good for Birmingham, do you not agree that it should be extended to three days? It is not quite that, but that sort of question.
I am anxious to proceed——

Mr. Harry Barnes: I have one of the questions here. A number of different questionnaires were available and I have an example of one question which states:
If Birmingham were to be offered a different sort of event, a Grand Prix, we should like the flexibility to move the dates if necessary, i.e. not on a bank holiday. Would you object to a change in the date?
There were 33 per cent. in support of the suggestion and 67 per cent. against.

Ms. Short: My hon. Friend is right: that was one of the questions.
I do not have time to read all the letters in the pile in front of me, but they include representations from Volvo—a major employer and a major firm on the circuit of the race—which writes about how deeply disruptive the race is to its business and states that it does not want it extended. A local vicar from Balsall Heath church centre wrote asking that we should oppose the four-day event. The church lies in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who also opposed the Bill on Second Reading. His constituent and my constituents are disrupted by the race.
The letter states:
Beside the general disruption for weeks before and after the race, as this residential area is turned into a motor-racing track, the worst experience for the residents is the exceedingly high level of noise. For many the two day event is only just bearable: four days will be intolerable. Some people in the area work nights, even over the Bank Holiday period, and need to sleep in the day. Many are elderly and infirm. There are mothers with babies who cannot begin to understand what all the noise is about. There are many people on tranquillisers. People have complained to me about suffering from headaches for weeks afterwards because of the noise. I am sure a four-day event will considerably increase discomfort and ill-health in the area. Most of the people of this area are poor. They cannot afford to go away on holiday to avoid the noise and disruption in the life of their neighbourhood. They need the protection of their elected representatives. I urge you, with other Birmingham MPs"—
the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) may wish to hear this—
to oppose any Parliamentary Bill to extend the times allowed for the Birmingham super-prix.
I have received other letters from Express Polythene, Frank Starkey Ltd., an old-age pensioner who cannot sleep at night, Smith Francis Tools Ltd., Alfred J. Parker Ltd., several other old-age pensioners, another firm, Aston and Taylor (News) Ltd., Birmingham Fellowship of Handicapped and many other employers. I have also heard from the Federation of Fruit and Potato Trades Ltd. because the race disrupts access to the markets in Birmingham. All the letters claim that these people can just about cope with two days, although the disruption is terrible, but four days would be unbearable for us as human beings and for our businesses.

Mr. Rooker: I know that we are time-limited, and I am keen to listen to other hon. Members, and even participate myself. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will not gloss over the employers which she has just mentioned. There is


obviously a difference of balance between those employers who provide income to the city and support the city and want the race, and those who do not want it. There is evidence of enormous numbers of traditional employers, and consequently employees, who are badly affected by the Bill. On the plus side, all we are given is a couple of hotels, a few pubs and a night club. That is not even as straightforward as one might suppose, according to the representations which I have received. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will not gloss over this matter, because she possesses something which no other hon. Member has: experience as the constituency Member of Parliament who represents employers on and inside the circuit whose businesses are badly affected.

Ms. Short: There is no doubt that many major businesses and employers are affected. Volvo on Bristol road, which employs about 100 people and has a massive turnover, is totally opposed. Some misleading propaganda has been put out by the press department of the city council. There is absolutely no doubt that major employers think that it is disruptive for the city and businesses. Two days is disruptive, four days is massively worse.
I have mentioned two reasons why this motion should not be carried: the way in which the Bill has been wrongly handled in procedural terms, and the overwhelming and passionate feeling of my constituents, local residents and businesses that four days is intolerable. The third reason for my opposition to the Bill is a matter touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill on Second Reading. It relates to the deeply dishonourable behaviour of the city council in relation to the Bill which has already been passed.
When the Bill to grant the two-day road race was first proposed, I faced a dilemma. I think that racing should be done on purpose-built tracks. I am not against racing, but it is dangerous, disruptive and noisy. People who want it should go to purpose-built tracks to enjoy road racing because that makes it safer and less disruptive for other people. In my original speech, as my hon. Friends may remember, I said that I faced a dilemma because although I was against the Bill I did not feel that I had the right to overturn the view of Birmingham city council which put the proposal before the House.
When Birmingham city council put it before us, it gave us lots of documents suggesting that the race would make masses of money for the people of Birmingham and create lots of jobs. I have one of the road race fact packs which we were given. It states:
The race will make money for the City Council, so the ratepayer will not lose out. We will not be taking decisions on whether to repair leaking roofs or support the road race. The road race will bring more cash into the authority's kitty.
I was deeply sceptical about whether the road race would make money. I was deeply worried that, instead, money which the ratepayers had paid and which was desperately needed to fix up some of the tower blocks and maisonettes which surround the circuit and are riddled with black mould would be used for the road race.
A proper insulation programme could massively improve the quality of life for the people who live in those homes. I feared that money would be used for the road race which could be spent on giving decent housing to those families. As hon. Members probably know, black

mould is not just uncomfortable and smelly, but seriously damages children's lungs. A large number of children in my constituency who live in those black mould infested flats are in and out of hospital with serious asthma and bronchitis problems.

Mr. Bevan: How on earth can the hon. Lady say that the HIP allowance for housing and the specific allowances for housing within the block grant are adversely affected by the finances of the motor race?

Ms. Short: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman was not listening. I do not know what goes on in this Chamber. I have read out some of the propaganda which the city council issued for the first road race in which it gives an assurance that it will not have to choose between the road race and leaking roofs because the race will bring money into the city. [An hon. Member: "It does."]. The hon. Gentleman seems not to be listening. The city council said that the race would be profitable and money would not have to be spent on it which would otherwise be used for repairing houses.
I doubted that the race would make money, but I thought that the best thing we could do would be to amend the Bill to hold the city council to its promise. It was promising that it would not cost the ratepayers anything and that a choice would not have to be made between the quality of other public services and the road roace. Therefore, my hon. Friends the Members for Perry Barr and Hodge Hill and I moved an amendment suggesting the following framework: that the power to run the road race should cease if it could not cover its costs in five years.
We did not state that it would have to meet its cost in the first year because we understand that it might have to build up its finances, and might take a little time to do so.

Mr. Terry Davis: My hon. Friend understates the case. We were told that the race would make a profit in three years. We suggested that the city council should be allowed five years so that there would be no possibility of it just missing the target in the third year. We were generous enough to give it an extra two years. Now we feel that we have been taken for a ride.

Ms. Short: My hon. Friend is right. We gave more than was asked. We thought that things could go wrong, it could rain—it certainly rained horrendously in the first year. We did not ask for the race to make a profit, but to break even in five years. We negotiated with the leader of the city council and it was agreed that this was a useful and helpful suggestion for the people of Birmingham and would be incorporated in the Bill. Sir Reginald Eyre, the then Member for Hall Green, sponsored the Bill on behalf of the city council. He said that our amendment proposal was wholly acceptable and that the city council would not want to run the race if it cost the ratepayers money. We were pleased and thought that, with this reasonable compromise, we had protected the interests of the people of Birmingham, and the leadership of the city council was happy with our amendment. Our proposal meant that the race could not cost money which should be spent on children's books, leaking roofs, black mould in flats, and so on.
The road race did less well than expected, and the accounts looked bad. The council was worried that the


power to run the race would lapse because it could not cover its costs, so it took legal advice from Price Waterhouse and went back more than once on that advice.
I have questioned the legality of all this with Price Waterhouse, and the company informs me that legal advice was taken on several occasions before what follows was done. It was decided that the running of the road race was worth £500,000 a year in advertising to the city of Birmingham, in terms of tourism promotion. It was further decided that that amount could be attributed to the value of the race in the accounts, thus converting a loss-making race into one that covered its costs.
This might be legal, but it is dishonourable, representing as it did a breach of the agreement that we had reached and of the words of Sir Reginald Eyre, who had said that the city council did not want to run the race if it cost the ratepayers money.

Mr. Denis Howell: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the form of accountancy in which the city is called upon by auditors, Price Waterhouse, to put in the accounts the amount by which the city is estimated to have benefited was imposed on the city and the Bill by my hon. Friends, who were thus hoist with their own petard? As a result, the council had to call in outside experts, specialists in international propaganda, who told it that the value of the race to Birmingham was £600,000. Price Waterhouse then had to insist that the city paid the £600,000 into the account to cover the requirement imposed by my hon. Friend.
May I further tell my hon. Friend——

Ms. Short: No—my right Friend is making a speech instead of an intervention.

Mr. Howell: It is important that she gets the facts right.
The race made an operational loss of £173,000 in 1986, an operational profit of £76,500 in 1987, and last year, 1988, an operational profit of £536,000—more than half a million pounds. That must be good business for Birmingham.

Ms. Short: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way to me.
The figures that my right hon. Friend quoted take into account the notional value of £600,000 for promoting Birmingham. That is a false profit, derived from promoting what is, in the eyes of the world, a potty little road race in Birmingham, at the expense of my constituents—and still the race cannot cover its costs.
My right hon. Friend's first point was also 100 per cent. wrong. We put it to the city council that the road race should be required to recover its costs, and that if it could not, the power to run it would lapse after five years. The council went away to its legal advisers and asked our co-operation in framing the amendment in the way that the council wanted.
We know that the accounting procedures for the road race are different from normal local authority accounting, but let us not allow that technical point to get in the way of what I consider the city council's deeply dishonourable behaviour in misleading the people of Birmingham. The council promised that the power to run the road race would cease if it cost the ratepayers money; it was then found that the race could not cover its costs; legal advice was taken and a way around the provision was found.
It is dishonourable to pretend that the race is worth £500,000 in promotion, but that was done to square the books and return the legal power to run the race. That still makes me angry when I think about it, and most people in Birmingham are unaware of how badly they have been misled by the sort of figures given my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath——

Mr. Terry Davis: Does my hon. Friend remember that the subsidy from the rates was charged to a promotion of tourism account that was already in deficit, so that the true effect of what the council did was to reclassify a loss?

Ms. Short: My hon. Friend is an expert in these matters. An attempt was made to mislead people about the road race covering its costs—it cannot. If a race that causes all this disruption cannot cover its costs, it is a waste of time——

Mr. Roger King: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Short: I did not think that the hon. Gentleman believed in public services. I do; priorities are caring for people and spending money on those who are in great need. The hon. Gentleman believes in subsidising an unprofitable road race out of the rates—and out of what is to be the poll tax—for the pleasure of his racing friends. They should pay for their own pleasures.

Mr. King: Has public money been taken out of the housing, education or social services budgets in the city accounts to subsidise this race? I do not think that the hon. Lady can find a penny piece that has been.
More importantly, the accusation that the hon. Lady has just levelled at the city is astounding. She has called city officers dishonest—and, by implication, the city leader and the leader of the council——

Mr. Terry Davis: She has not.

Mr. King: She has. It is eveident to me that the word "misleading" could he interpreted as dishonest—a serious charge to level at our city's officers and leaders.

Ms. Short: I have heard that men of a certain age acquire hearing problems. Three or four instances of that seem to be present this evening. Whenever I say something, an hon. Gentleman gets up and appears not to have heard it. I said that I believed that getting around the provisions of the Act in which it was agreed that the race should break even or be discontinued after five years was deeply dishonourable. That is what I said and that is what I meant.

Mr. King: That is worse.

Ms. Short: At school we told each other to wash out our ears if we could not hear properly. The word that I meant and used was "dishonourable".
I am upset and surprised that the city council of Birmingham, with the agreement of all parties and of its senior officers, is willing to behave so dishonourably——

Mr. Denis Howell: Say that outside.

Ms. Short: I have said it outside, and I have corresponded with those who objected to my doing so. We have all explained to each other why I used the term——

Mr. Harry Barnes: My hon. Friend was being charitable; would she term this activity creative accounting?

Ms. Short: It would be charitable to call it that. It is a legal breach of an agreement. The council found a technical and legal way to break its word and the spirit of an amendment to a Bill that was passed in this House.

Mr. Rooker: In good faith.

Ms. Short: Yes, and when we reached the agreement, there was good faith on both sides.
Other parts of the legislation and other agreements have also been breached. We felt strongly that, if the people of Birmingham were to subsidise the race even for five years, they should have better access to it than others. We thought it fair and right that the people of Birmingham should have access to cheaper tickets than people from other parts of the country. That was accepted and it was on the face of the Bill, but it has been breached and ignored.
I do not know why the House bothers to pass legislation for Birmingham, because Birmingham does not seem to take any notice. The council looked at our suggestion about tickets and thought that it was inconvenient and difficult to provide them for the people of Birmingham, so instead they provided cheaper tickets for those who bought them in advance of the race, and that is a breach of the law. If some people who did not get cheap tickets were richer, they would probably take legal action on the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) spoke about cigarette advertising. I know that undertakings were given. Were they incorporated in the Bill?

Mr. Terry Davis: I have looked into the matter and I think that the verbal undertakings have been kept to the letter. Tobacco is advertised on a car that takes part in the race, but I would not accuse the city council of having broken that undertaking. The undertaking was worded in such a way that the council has kept it.

Ms. Short: That is interesting. It is a matter that interests my hon. Friend rather than me, but I thought that there was an agreement that there would be no promotion of South African people or of cigarettes. I went to the road race last time. I did not go to the stands, nor did I partake of the hospitality. I visited the houses and gardens of some of my constituents. There is an unbearable noise when the cars pass and I saw a car advertising, I think, Marlboro cigarettes. I seem to remember an undertaking about not advertising cigarettes. When we met senior figures in the council in the early stages of the Bill, the undertaking that cigarettes would not be advertised was repeated.

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend's recollection is correct. I sought undertakings from the city council on two matters: that there should not be sponsorship by any company well known as being involved in South Africa, and that the race should not advertise tobacco and particularly cigarettes. I have checked the file and the letter that I subsequently received from the city council. I think that the city council has honoured that undertaking. I believe in approaching the Bill and the whole question of the road race objectively. We should not accuse anyone of bad faith in respect of those two undertakings.

Ms. Short: I am pleased to hear that, because it restores my faith a little. I have never taken a major interest in that point, but I was shocked when I saw the Marlboro car go rushing by. The legislation lays down strict times about when the barriers can be erected and taken down. Those rules are unquestionably breached and anyone who lives in any of the streets will say they are erected earlier and taken down later, sometimes in the middle of the night when there is supposed to be no noise.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: That is shocking.

Ms. Short: I am glad to hear that the hon. Member for Selly Oak is shocked. This year, when I went to the road race, tenant after tenant in houses next to the circuit complained about the unbearable noise. It is an incredible noise, which hurts one's ears. I met the leader of the city council, and he said, "What do you think?" I said that I did not like it very much. He said "It is terribly noisy—unbearable isn't it?" He said that as he left the circuit after the major race of the day. The noise is uncomfortable, especially for elderly people and children. If readings were taken of the noise levels I am sure that they would be found to be above the danger to health level.
I see that the council has undertaken to monitor future noise levels. I understand that the council monitored the levels this year but will not publish the results. Last year or in previous years it handed out free ear plugs.

Mr. Corbett: It did that this year.

Ms. Short: Not to everybody. I was there, and as I walked up and down people said to me, "We got free ear plugs last year but we have not all got them this year." I know that the people in the hospitality tent gave them out. As I was leaving, the leader of the city council gave me his, and I still have them on my desk in Birmingham. However, they were not given to all the people who live in the area and who need them more than the visitors, because they are in the area all the time.
Leaving aside the matter of tobacco—I accept the correction of my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill on that—there are other serious breaches of the agreement. The big one is the breach of the undertaking to break even in five years or stop. There are also breaches about the times of erecting the barriers and cheaper tickets for the people of Birmingham, an agreement that was on the face of the Bill and which has been breached.
The hon. Member for Northfield recited a list of undertakings about what the city council will do. Second time around, I am afraid that I do not believe that. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman gave the undertakings in good faith. However, I am sure that, when Sir Reginald Eyre said that it would not be the wish of any hon. Member or of anyone on the city council to run the race if it cost the ratepayers money, he did so with an absolute commitment. However, we have seen breaches of the undertakings.
Undertakings are welcome as far as they go, but they are not necessarily honoured. They are only undertakings, and were not even on the face of the Bill. Leaving aside the continuing argument about money, the undertaking about cheap tickets for the people of Birmingham has been ignored. It was also said that religious worship would be respected. People in the churches on the circuit cannot hear themselves praying when a race is on, and to say that they will be able to continue with religious worship is a


joke. They will not, because it will be impossible. I am afraid that I do not believe the undertakings given by the hon. Member for Northfield.
There is another matter relating to accounts. People in Ladywood are sceptical about what is included and what is excluded in the accounts. Some extraordinary things are going on. This is a neglected area with terrible problems of black mould in the houses. People come along just before the race and paint the houses fronting the circuit. Houses round the corner do not get painted. Curtains are put up in empty flats so that, when television cameras pan the area, viewers will not see empty windows.
People who live in the area and whose real needs and those of their children and local schools are neglected get very angry and cynical about such behaviour. I do not believe for one minute that the accounts reflect the real cost of the race, because we know that they take account only of staff who are almost wholly employed in organising the race. All the people who clean up the area, put out the flowers, do the painting and so on are not included in the accounts.
The people who live there are extremely cynical. I have had many letters and complaints, some of which I have sent on. People say, "Just because I live off the circuit, my house has not been painted. Houses round the corner that are on the circuit have been painted twice, but mine has not been touched because the television camera will not pan across it." Those that are painted are painted only in the front and not at the back.
One of the undertakings given today was that double glazing would be fitted to houses near the circuit. Imagine the cost of that.

Mr. Denis Howell: Does my hon. Friend object to that?

Ms. Short: If people are to be subjected to horrendous noise, they should have double glazing, but it would be much better to put the race on a purpose-built circuit so that they are not subjected to such noise.

Mr. Terry Davis: I have some experience of this, and I know that secondary glazing should be provided, not double glazing. Secondary glazing to cut down noise is well known in my constituency because of the nuisance from Birmingham airport. The problem with secondary glazing is that it is effective only if one keeps the windows closed. This race takes place on August bank holiday—the very time when people like to have their windows open.

Ms. Short: I take my hon. Friend's point, and I know that his constituency suffers because of the noise from the airport. However, the airport is a different problem. Races should be put on a track, so that the noise does not affect people so much. Instead of the money being spent on double glazing, it should be used to tackle the black mould. I feel strongly about that, because it is a serious problem that can be dealt with, and the money has not been found to do so.
The Bill should not be carried over, because of the sheer intolerable disruption that it causes to people's lives. When the race was on this year, I visited a number of my constituents whose houses are on the circuit and I heard the noise, which is unbearable. It is fine if one goes to a road race because one chooses to go, is excited to go and is happy to subject one's ears to this unbearable noise. However, if one lives on the circuit,

one is subjected to it whether or not one wants to be. When people complain, they are told to go away, but when they go away, their houses are broken into and their gardens are used as urinals. People feel that they need to stay in their houses to look after them when crowds are coming to the area.
There is also enormous disruption to traffic in the period leading up to the race, caused by the erection of barriers. I imagine that the hon. Members for Northfield and for Selly Oak know about that. Taxi drivers and others complain about it.
Furthermore, once the barriers are up, buses are diverted. This is a poorer area with relatively low car ownership and people who have to use buses to go into town to do their shopping cannot get on them. They object to that.
I do not know whether hon. Members know, but when the armco kerb is erected, mothers with children and pensioners cannot get out of their houses properly, so little ramps are built to help such people. Unfortunately, a number of elderly people fell off the ramp over the armco kerb so that they could get out of their houses to do their shopping. This is all for a two-day race.
I have a letter here from one of my constituents, Mr. O'Donnell, of 21, Hodnet grove, who sent for a doctor because he was ill. The doctor came at 11.30 am, was not allowed in, went away and did not come back till 5 pm, although the organisers said that they would provide access. Happily, although he was in pain, my constituent did not suffer from a worse illness because of this lack of treatment.
Church services are enormously disrupted, and that is greatly objected to.
I made it clear at the beginning of my speech, and I make it clear again, that the city of Birmingham already has legal powers to run a two-day road race. It should concentrate on running it efficiently, covering costs and not disrupting the lives of local people. A four-day race will be unbearable, because of the disruption and costs. Contradictory things are said about this four-day race. Sometimes we are told that it will become a grand prix, which will mean that there will be four days of racing, which will be unbearable for local people. Sometimes, we are told that it will be only a three-day race, but in that case why does the Bill take powers for four days?
The Bill has been wrongly handled. It would be better to start again. It is intolerable to suggest that powers should be granted for a four-day race with no constraint on expenditure. For that reason alone, it would be better to lose the Bill and start again next Session. It is in the interests of the people of Birmingham that this road race ceases. I think that if hon. Members met and knew my constituents, they would agree with me, and would not vote for a four-day race. It has been ridiculously hyped up. Screaming noisy cars should not go round where people live.
When I saw the race, I was interviewed by a man, whose name I have forgotten, who produces a motor racing programme. He said that it was a rotten track and that at hardly any point could one see what was going on. It may be exciting to have a race where people live, but it is a bad track. It is not a good shape for road racing. It is rubbish on every level. I appeal to the House not to carry the Bill over to the next Session.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Atkins): I shall intervene only briefly—the motion is strictly procedural—to advise the House of the Government's view. My hon. Friends may rest assured that I am not the Government Chief Whip. They need have no fear that my words will in any sense cause them to worry.
The House knows that traditionally the Government stand neutral on private Bills, and this Bill is no exception to that rule. It was made clear to the House when my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who was then the Minister responsible, intervened on Second Reading that the issues raised by the Bill are essentially of local concern. Accordingly, there is no reason for the Government to intervene. It would be consistent with that approach for the Government to support the carry-over motion.

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: I have been referred to in the debate, it having been said that on a previous occasion my speech was short. I acknowledge that. I spoke for only a short time because I wished to allow another two Labour Members to contribute to the debate. I regret that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) did not speak on that occasion, but she certainly had her fill this evening. We listened to 55 minutes of innuendo, accusations and distortions of quotations. That did little honour to Birmingham, to the level of the debate and to the great majority of the people of Birmingham, who want the debate and want the car race. That being so, they want the carry-over motion to be agreed to.
There has been talk in the Chamber of 6:1 being in favour of the Bill and the car race—[Interruption.] I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Ladywood is leaving the Chamber after the accusations that she made. In Birmingham, however, there was a clear majority in favour of the Bill. There was no bias in the question that was put to the people of Birmingham—that was made clear when it was read out to us—and there has been no dishonour.
Birmingham and the midlands are benefiting from tourism by about £1,000 million a year, and it is imperative that the city is associated with the motor car. The motor car is one of its earliest manufactures and it is something for which the city is historically well known. The car race offers a showroom window to the world.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) were, like me, members of Birmingham city council for a long time before coming to this place. My hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak and I were members of the council for far longer than we have been members of the House. I served on the council for 21 years and I know that my hon. Friend served on it for longer than that. The right hon. Member for Small Heath served between 1946 and 1954.

Mr. Denis Howell: No, 1956.

Mr. Bevan: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for correcting me. I should like to be accurate in every respect during my speech, unlike some of those who have spoken before me.
The right hon. Member for Small Heath knows, as we all do—he, my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak and I are the only three people present who served on the city council—that Birmingham has wanted the Bill for a long time. My hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak and I voted for such a measure as long ago as 1973 when the issue first arose. I am pleased to say that the Bill is now unstoppable unless some Opposition Members—a small minority—are successful in their determination to block the measure by introducing every disruptive practice that they can.
The prime motive behind the Bill is safety, which is of paramount importance in motor racing. The international governing body, FISA, is responsible for the safety of drivers and tracks. Its rules become stricter year by year. We must applaud FISA and ensure that its rules are abided by. One of the greatest racing drivers in history has recently learnt that safety rules must be abided by, probably at the cost of losing a world championship. Therefore, I remind the House that the principal purpose of the Bill is to improve safety in the pits and on the track. Without the legislation, the international licence of the Birmingham circuit is in jeopardy. A vote against the Bill is a vote not only against the promoters' ambitious plans to extend the event, but against the race itself.
In my view, the hon. Member for Ladywood committed political suicide when she announced her real intention in the last minutes of her speech. Unlike that of most other people, her real intention is to stop the Bill and to delay or jeopardise the future of the race. Other cities, in Britain and abroad, would be very anxious to take up the challenge if Birmingham were to lose it. The longer the race is established, the safer it is and the safer Birmingham's lead in world terms.
One of my portfolios on the Back Benches is tourism, so I know that the figures are right. Hoteliers are reporting greater use of hotels and the value to tourism of activities such as motor racing is accelerating in Birmingham. It means more jobs in the inner city, in Ladywood, in Sparkbrook, in parts of Hodge Hill and certainly in parts of Yardley. It would be madness to object to those economic gains.

Mr. Rooker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bevan: The debate has been characterised by continual interventions and I should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would allow me to make my case as quickly as I can so that he can question my speech in the context of his own.
The race has been one of the contributory factors to £1·5 billion investment in the city and an endorsement of the enterprise for which Birmingham is so famous. That is an all-party endorsement because Birmingham is not divided on this matter. The only divisions are the few that have been so vocally expressed tonight. All the great things that exist in Birmingham—the national exhibition centre, the convention centre which is almost finished and the Birmingham international airport and station—were all carried through on an all-party basis, as is our tradition.
I have been privileged and honoured to be part of that process. To suggest, under the protection of this Chamber, that our officials have behaved dishonourably is an absolute iniquity. On behalf of those officials I must stress that they have committed no malfeasance whatsoever and the case has been put fairly and honourably, as it deserves. Tonight an attempt has been made to perpetrate a moral defeat by using procedural means to defeat a Bill which has almost, the wholehearted support of those on the council, in the city and in the country.
I am certain that hon. Members who object to the Bill are sincere, but why do they always object to measures that, given time, will not only be profitable for the city's coffers and underwrite matters of greater social importance but will give people pleasure? I cannot and will not understand that attitude.
We want to support industry, and what better way of showing that than by supporting the industry that has been the heart of the midlands—the car industry? The race does not deprive Birmingham of money, but it adds to the spectrum of the city and to the quality of leisure in it. It is of much value to the Rover Group and other manufacturers and all the component manufacturers who employ Brummies.
Although the race may occasionally be noisy, and although occasionally it might be the cause of verbal abrasiveness in the House or outside, it is welcome. Birmingham is a warm and welcoming and exciting place, and once experienced it is not easily left or forgotten. I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to agree to the carry-over motion and to continue to give the city its car birthright.

Mr. Denis Howell: Although I feel strongly about the Bill, about which I have spoken previously, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be glad to hear that I shall attempt to put my succinct points succinctly.
Some important points must be made. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) has left the Chamber—I am sure for good reasons—but I am sure that she will not object to my replying to some of the points that she made. My hon. Friend let the cat out of the bag in the last two minutes of her speech. For 55 minutes, she urged us not to pass the carry-over motion but to introduce a new Bill and to reconsider financial and other matters. Having urged that on us, she said that we should kill the road race. It was quite clear to hon. Members that whatever the city council did she would not support a Bill for a road race in any circumstances. Therefore, her plea——

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend said, in her constituency.

Mr. Howell: I accept that amendment. Her plea to introduce a new Bill for the race, which is located in her constituency, would therefore never receive her support.
I need not remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are debating the carry-over motion. We should not be debating the merits of the road race——

Mr. Rooker: We are not.

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) says that we are

not. In that case, I must have misunderstood the lengthy speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood.
The Bill has properly gone through its parliamentary procedures, but hon. Members voting against the carry-over motion are voting not to continue parliamentary discussion of the Bill.

Mr. Rooker: In this Session.

Mr. Howell: In this next Session. The carry-over motion is to allow us to continue discussion in the next Session. Some of my hon. Friends do not want to debate the merits of the Bill in the next Session, which is why they oppose the carry-over motion. I do not approve of that extraordinary parliamentary procedure. I have strong views about the private Bill procedure, which has got out of hand, but they are probably not so strong as yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have my sympathy in dealing with that dilemma. When the public are required to bring a private Bill before the House to get parliamentary authority for their actions, they are entitled to have the procedures on the Bill followed in the ways laid down by Parliament. My hon. Friends are objecting to that.
There is no doubt that many Birmingham citizens support the Bill. Even those living close to the race supported it in a poll. My hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood conceded that just over 50 per cent. voted for it. That is a majority among the people most likely to be affected. The Bill certainly has the support of a majority of the members of the city council, and I am glad to say that it has the support of at least eight of the 12 Birmingham Members of Parliament. That should not be lightly forgotten.
I should like to deal with a financial point. I gave some figures in an intervention, so I shall not go over them again. In 1988, the last year for which we have published accounts for the race, there was an operational profit of about £582,000—a tremendous profit. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Bar intervenes, may I say that I agree that that includes the £600,000. My hon. Friend has a big responsibility for that sum, to which he will not admit. After taking account of that £600,000, the deficit this year was about £17,000 overall. The cost to the ratepayer this year was about £17,000.

Mr. Rooker: It was £600,000.

Mr. Howell: It was not £600,000, but £17,000.

Mr. Rooker: It was £600,000.

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend does not understand the figures. The operational profit was £582,000. As my hon. Friend said, the cost to the city of promoting the race was £600,000. If my hon. Friend does a little mathematics, he will see that subtracting £582,616 from £600,000 leaves the cost to the ratepayer—£17,384. That was the actual cost.

Mr. Rooker: No, it was £600,000.

Mr. Howell: I am coming to what we got for that. Did the city council get value for that money? I want to comment on the £600,000 about which my hon. Friends feel so strongly. It was imposed on the city council by my


hon. Friends because of their representations that every penny possible should be put into the accounts in accordance with proper accounting procedures.

Mr. Rooker: Come on.

Mr. Howell: That is what my hon. Friends were asking for. Because of that pressure, it was proposed in an amendment, to which my hon. Friends did not object, that the accounts must be made on the basis of what was technically termed a "true and fair view" basis. That was the form of words imposed on the city council.

Ms. Short: It was drafted by the city council.

Mr. Howell: It was drafted by the city council, but at the insistence of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Terry Davis: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Howell: Of course I will give way, when I have finished my point. I do not want to stop my hon. Friend from making his point. I remember the "true and fair view" basis in the amendment drafted by the city council to meet the pressures put on it by my hon. Friends to have proper accounting.

Mr. Davis: I was closely involved in discussions with Sir Reginald Eyre on the city council's behalf. The discussions took place in the presence of parliamentary agents on behalf of the city council. I was pressing Sir Reginald Eyre, on behalf of my hon. Friends, to accept the inclusion in the Bill of the principle that there would not be any charge to the rates and the proposal that if the race did not make a cumulative profit after five years—the council was actually offering three years—it would be stopped.
The wording of the amendment was provided by Sir Reginald Eyre and I believe that it was drafted for him by parliamentary agents to give effect to his and the city council's assurances. We were simply asking the city council to include in the Bill what it said it wanted to do in any case. It is not correct for my right hon. Friend to accuse me and my hon. Friends of having drafted the amendment or of being in any way responsible for any defective wording in the city council's effort to give legal effect to what it had offered and we had accepted.

Mr. Howell: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. Everything that he says supports my contention. I certainly never said that my hon. Friends drafted the amendment—I said that they pressed for this form of accountancy.

Mr. Terry Davis: My right hon. Friend is wrong. Will he give way?

Mr. Howell: No, I will not give way. I am describing what happened correctly.

Mr. Davis: That is wrong.

Mr. Howell: I do not believe that I am wrong.

Mr. Davis: My right hon. Friend was not there; I was. Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Howell: Sit down. I know that my hon. Friend was there, but I was the recipient of the Bill when it came back here. The wording that I have read out to the House was designed to meet the pressure that the city council thought

was being put on it. Perhaps the council was wrong, but it took advice and the amendment was drafted. To the best of my knowledge, no hon. Member objected to that form of accountancy when we discussed the Birmingham City Council Bill.

Mr. Davis: That is wrong.

Mr. Howell: Let me explain. I must say that I do not want the £600,000 to be included. However, the wording having been accepted, Price Waterhouse said that if we had to have true and meaningful accountancy, the accounts must include the value that the city received from advertising itself worldwide as a result of the race. That is the history of the matter.

Mr. Davis: No, it is not.

Mr. Howell: Yes, it is. We must consider next whether we have had good value for the money.

Mr. Davis: My right hon. Friend is wrong.

Mr. Howell: I do not think that I am. I accept my hon. Friend's account of what happened, but my interpretation of what he said happened is that it resulted in the drafting of the amendment.

Mr. Davis: That is wrong.

Mr. Howell: I believe it to be the case.

Mr. Davis: It is wrong.

Mr. Howell: I support the race not only because it is a major sporting event, and I have spent all my life trying to bring major sporting events to Birmingham, but because the most important aim in inner cities——

Mr. Davis: No.

Mr. Howell: I do not know what my hon. Friend is objecting to.

Mr. Davis: I repeat to my right hon. Friend that he is mistaken. I accept that he is misinformed, but the account that I gave—and he has accepted—of the discussion that took place with Sir Reginald Eyre did not suggest any particular form of words for the amendment or for the type of accountancy to take place. That all came from Sir Reginald Eyre, the city council and the parliamentary agents. It is wrong for my right hon. Friend to suggest that we were in any way involved in the drafting.

Mr. Howell: I did not say that.

Mr. Davis: Sir Reginald Eyre gave an assurance to the House that the amendment proposed by the city council met our points. If it is defective, responsibility rests with the city council.

Mr. Howell: That may be so, and it may be the common ground between us, but I must stress that the amendment was drafted by parliamentary agents and lawyers in an attempt to meet the points that were urged on them about the need for proper constructive accountancy. As a result, my hon. Friends have what they did not expect and what I do not want either. Price Waterhouse—the auditors imposed by the Government, not by the city—told us that in that case we must include the value of the race to the city in promotional terms. That amount is estimated by other consultants and experts to be £600,000. That is not disputed.
Have we had value for money? The second reason why I support the race—if my hon. Friends agree that this is the case, they will agree that it is desirable—is that we must bring jobs into Birmingham. All the inner-city constituencies which I and my hon. Friends represent have an unemployment level of about 30 per cent. I hope that hon. Members supporting the Bill will not mind my saying that our unemployment problems in Birmingham will not be solved by the Government, but by us. [HON. MEMBERS "That is true.] I agree with that, too. It is all part and parcel of the promotion of the city internationally through the olympic campaign, which I had the privilege to lead, the international exhibition centre, for which there was all-party support, the international convention centre, which promises to be an outstanding success, and the international indoor sports arena. I used some influence to have the arena built in Birmingham with great effect, and it is now being built. It will be the only international indoor sports arena in the country. All such projects are vital. With the grand prix road race, they result in £1·5 billion being invested in Birmingham.

Mr. Rooker: Who is arguing against that?

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is arguing against a bit of it.

Mr. Rooker: In the few minutes at the end of Second Reading I separated out all the examples that my right hon. Friend has just given. They are all solid capital assets for our city which will be of undoubted benefit to future generations. However, one cannot by any stretch of the imagination equate the road race with such solid capital assets. It is simply a revenue plughole.

Mr. Howell: The accumulation of public relations and the projection of the city combine to produce the result. No one can deny that the grand prix road race is part of the accumulation aimed at presenting the modern face of Birmingham. This year, 100,000 people watched the road race. Birmingham citizens and others voted with their feet by turning up to watch.

Mr. Rooker: That is 1 per cent. of Birmingham's citizens.

Mr. Howell: One hundred thousand people turned up to watch the race and at least 10 million watched it on television. No sports event in the history of this country has been televised by Independent Television, Central Television and the BBC all at once. It is the only time that a weekend sporting event has been televised simultaneously by every channel available.

Ms. Short: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend attended the race this year, but I have been to it in previous years. It was notable that many of the stands were empty. The people who live nearby say that the numbers were undoubtedly down this year, perhaps because it was beautiful weather. Is my right hon. Friend saying that 100,000 tickets were sold?

Mr. Howell: No, I did not say that. I said that 100,000 people turned up.

Ms. Short: Some of them cannot help it.

Mr. Howell: Let me answer the point. There were 88,000 people who paid to watch the race. This year, the

city council, in its wisdom, decided to allow people to bring their children free. There were 88,000 adults at the race and 12,000 children accompanied them. My hon. Friend should welcome that because she has been urging that people in Birmingham should be given concessionary tickets.

Mr. Corbett: As research into attendance at the race last year shows, two out of three people who paid to watch the road race were from outside Birmingham. Is that not important because, but for the road race, that money would be unlikely to come to Birmingham?

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is quite right. The road race is part of our attempt to promote the city, and I do not know how it could be done better. It cost us about £17,000 in 1988. Where else in the country could one achieve as much for £17,000? The race has been projected to about 30 different countries worldwide; 11 million people watched it in this country and 100,000 people turned up and paid to watch it. That is fantastic——

Ms. Short: Did you go?

Mr. Howell: No, I did not go because I was having a heart attack at the time. If I had heard my hon. Friend's speech before my heart attack I might not have survived, but due to the care of the National Health Service I am in more robust form than before.

Ms. Short: We are all extremely glad that my right hon. Friend survived. He spent some of the time in Dudley Road hospital in my constituency, and I am sure he received superb care there. We are all very pleased to see him looking so well.

Mr. Howell: My survival was due to the co-operation of Dudley Road hospital in Birmingham and the National Heart hospital in London and I am glad to say that all is well.

Mr. Rooker: My right hon. Friend should take it easy.

Mr. Howell: I intend to take it easy, but my hon. Friend must not provoke me. If my surgeons were here, they would be getting upset.
Almost every country in Europe and countries world-wide broadcast the road race, which appeared not only in its own right but on all the news bulletins. It was very good value for Birmingham. That is why we should carry the Bill over.
I do not want to stop my hon. Friends objecting to the Bill. They have every right to do so, and I do not complain about that for one moment. But the time for them to voice their objections will come on Report and Third Reading. If we pass the motion to carry the Bill over, my hon. Friends will have every right to object in those debates. If we do not carry the motion, we shall kill the Bill and prevent ourselves from taking advantage of the merits of the race. That would be unacceptable from the point of view of the House and of the city of Birmingham. I urge the House to support the motion.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: This has been an interesting debate in which Conservative Members' views have been almost peripheral to the argument taking place on the Opposition Benches


—which would be a cause for satisfaction were the Bill not so important to the city of Birmingham and its long-term plans.
I have some sympathy with the proper point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) that people's lives are regularly interrupted by developments such as this. When I was a young councillor—as will be obvious, that was many years ago—I secured a bus stop that someone very much wanted. In fact, I did so well that the bus stop was outside the person's house. He never ceased to complain because he wanted the bus stop in his road but outside someone else's house. The same can happen with airports. We all know that Birmingham international airport is of huge importance to the city, but we do not want the flight path over our homes.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: No, I shall not give way. I want to complete my point for the sake of Birmingham people.
Of course we need airports, but they disturb people's lives. The same is true of the national exhibition centre. I was a founder director and signed the contract on behalf of the city. That, too, interrupted many people's lives—as does the convention centre. One can make a good argument against nearly every development on the ground that it will inconvenience someone.
The hon. Member for Ladywood argued that many of her constituents would be put out, and I do not doubt for one moment that that is a proper argument. Cars, like motor bikes, are noisy things. But we must look further than that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) pointed out, I served on Birmingham city council for 23 years with many splendid Socialist as well as Conservative councillors. We spoke for Birmingham. Labour Ministers often used to say that Labour Members from Birmingham gave them a harder time than Conservative Members. Indeed, Conservative Members also said that Conservative Members from Birmingham gave them a harder time than the Socialists. We all spoke for Birmingham.
On behalf of the city of Birmingham, I resent some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Ladywood. In her excitement and her desire to serve her constituents, she said that we were talking about a potty little road race. It is not potty to try to bring considerable publicity and hope to one's people.

Ms. Short: If the hon. Gentleman has the race in his constituency, he will lose his seat.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: It is always the easiest argument in the world to say, "Have it near you." For 30 years as a councillor and as a Member of this place I have argued in favour of issues which I believed were for the wider good of Birmingham. The people of Ladywood need prosperity as much as any and more than many. They need things like the Olympics—a glorious £2 million failure, but which still bought us a lot of publicity—a motor race, the convention centre, the city of Birmingham symphony orchestra or even the Birmingham royal ballet. Those things help to give people a vision of Birmingham.
Labour colleagues of the hon. Member for Ladywood must resent the fact that time after time she mentioned the

phrases, "deeply dishonourable", "misleading" or "if the truth was told." As far as I can tell, the only good point that the hon. Member for Ladywood would make about her colleagues is that they were deeply dishonourable, but with good intent. I have never known anyone be deeply dishonourable with good intent. There is either good intent about what the city council, on behalf of the people wished to do, or there is not. It cannot be deeply dishonourable to tell the truth if it could be told or to tell people that they deliberately mislead and then try to say, "I know that they do it with the best intentions." On sober reflection, I hope that the hon. Member for Ladywood will withdraw what she said.
If a proposal produces a vast amount of advertising, that is not fraudulent. Why do people want their names on racing cars? Why do they want to have the Barclays Football League? Why should Marlboro appear on racing cars or Kelloggs' symbols on children's television programmes? Such names subliminally and properly make people believe that that is good advertising. Advertising is not something that is handed out like lollipops on street corners or with "Kiss me Quick, Clare" hats at election time. It is all part of an overall strategy.
The city council is not dishonourable, not even with good intent. It is honourable with the good intent of trying to round off what some of us have spent 30 years of our lives doing: making people worldwide look on Birmingham not as a narrow provincial city, but as a place with vision.
Alderman Harry Whatton was a great Labour leader of the city of Birmingham. When he signed the £23 million contract all those years ago for the national exhibition centre, I remember telling him that we would either end up in prison or as heroes. Happily, we did not end up in prison.

Mr. Corbett: I believe that the hon. Gentleman meant to use the word "publicity" instead of "advertising". My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) stated that the reporting of the road race by ITV through Central and by the BBC in this country and in 30 other countries round the world was not space that we could have bought even if we had wanted to.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I meant to include publicity.
Ever since 1956, when I was elected as a councillor for the local division of my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley, the council has had vision. The road race is part of that continuing vision. I sympathise with people whose lives are interrupted—for example, taxi drivers who moan because they cannot get their taxis through, and people from the vegetable market who moan about the race day—but we all need a prosperous Birmingham. Business may be interrupted one day to give prosperity the next day. I hope that Birmingham Members of Parliament can look further than being eight against four. I should like to think that, for the future of our city, whatever the inconvenience, we are 12 for all.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: It is a pity that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) was not present to support the city council on Second Reading. He was not in the House to


speak or to vote. He was conspicuous by his absence. Judging by his speech today, one would think that the hon. Gentleman was present that day. The same applies to other Conservative Members from the city of Birmingham. It is not the cosy arrangement that one would suppose. Some hon. Members are conscious of finances. We are well aware that, during next year's local election, Conservative Members will attack the Labour-controlled city council for its record over the past six years—the longest period that Labour has been in power since the war. The council will go on for at least 10 years. Conservative Members will attack the council for whatever poll tax is set—whether it is £240 or £340. However, included in the poll tax will be a subvention for the road race.
Underlying all our debates, our primary objection has been the way in which finances have been handled. It was never intended that ratepayers' or poll tax payers' money should be used to subsidise the road race. It was clearly and explicitly stated that that would not happen, and arrangements were made to make sure that it would not happen. I disregard debates about whether it will take three or five years to break even. Leaving aside revenue costs, we even thought that we had an arrangement for capital costs. We thought that capital costs had been so arranged that it would be possible, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said in her press release, to spend money on roofs, gutters and eliminating black mould. We know now that that is not the case. That is our central objection.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said that, this year, the race will cost ratepayers £17,000, as though, for a city with a budget of £1 billion, £17,000 does not matter. Birmingham city council is so strapped for cash that 150 disabled people have not been granted bus passes. The council was unable to find the £15,000 to fund their bus passes. That gives an idea of what a council can do with £17,000.
Birmingham city council is not a high-spending authority. Anyone who knows Birmingham would say that it spends too little in some areas. It is £96 a head below average metropolitan districts, as was shown by last week's statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment. It is a question of priorities. We should leave aside the benefits that might accrue from the road race—the publicity and advertising—which I separate in revenue terms from the other issues raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath, such as the NEC and the international convention centre, which are wholly different. Those issues are on different planets from the road race.
We must consider the financial arrangements and the overall benefits to the city. I am the first to make the point that one must be careful when painting the whole picture of our urban areas. On the one hand, we want new and better investment in our great cities from the public and private sectors. That is crucial across the country. But on the other hand, the dilemma for those of us who represent the arguments of the people who are downtrodden and ignored, who get second best, who have had a bad start, who end up in rotten housing or with rotten or no jobs and who are involved in a cycle of deprivation, is that if we highlight those facts to fight for something better, we are told that we are doing our city down. We have to strike a balance.
So far, to its credit, Birmingham has never put a homeless person or family into a bed-and-breakfast hotel. Never. That is a massive plus for Birmingham city council, but the housing crisis in our city is now so great that within a couple of years—by the time that the five-star Hyatt hotel opens, with its £2 million of ratepayers' money; at the very time the international convention centre opens; and the fifth or sixth year of the road race—there will be a cardboard city in Birmingham. There is no question about that. Under the present financial arrangements we cannot cope with our housing crisis. That means that we must look at the full cost of an enterprise such as the road race.

Dame Jill Knight: rose——

Mr. Rooker: I shall not give way to the hon. Lady—[Interruption.] No, I shall not. I was cut short with only seven minutes and had a closure motion moved on me in our previous debate on this and I am sure that it will happen again before 10 o'clock this evening. Although I have a lot to say, I shall not because there will be time later on. I simply want to make a few preliminary points. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) is on one of her rare visits to our Birmingham road race debates. She is an assiduous attender of the House, but not at these debates.
I turn first to the true overall cost. The point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath so robustly made was that, because of the demands that we made under section 14 of the Birmingham City Council Act 1985, our chickens are coming home to roost. But the fact is that not all the social costs of the road race are put into the accounts. The auditors, lawyers and accountants have found it convenient to include some of the pluses, such as the £600,000 worth of promotion, but they are not willing to include the social costs of the road race. I shall mention just one of those costs—delays. The cost of publicity may be something on which one cannot easily put a figure, but I understand that the sum of £600,000 has been arrived at by looking at all the references to Birmingham in the newspapers and on television and trying to put some value on them. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath concedes that it must he a value judgment.
Let us consider the cost of traffic delays. I shall use the Department of Transport's own figures because we do not build roads willy-nilly in this country: all our roads are subject to a cost-benefit analysis to decide whether they should be single, dual or have three carriageways. We also consider the cost of bridges. The Department of Transport's assessment of the cost of delays caused to what is termed a "working car"—a car containing people travelling to work—is £9·124 per hour. If we take only the periods before and after the racing weekend, and accepting that at rush-hour times most vehicles are working cars with, say, a 15-minute delay per vehicle, for 1,000 cars, the cost is £2,281.
As the full traffic flow figures are not known for the entire circuit, I am using the traffic flow figures for the A38 from the Department of Transport. If we estimate that 1,500 cars were held up for 15 minutes, twice daily, for 20 working days between July to September, excluding the race weekend, the delay would cost, at 1988 figures, £136,860. The estimate does not include lorries. That dislocation to travel and transport in Birmingham is the


social cost of the road race. No one has bothered to put that on the other side of the account which suggests that £600,000 could be derived from promotions. That cost should be investigated.
I am happy to accept the closure when the time comes, but I hope that I shall get the four and a half minutes left to me. I received a letter from the licensee of a brand new restaurant and bar complex in the city centre. He told me that most of his customers on the racing weekend were other licensees who were checking how many customers he had. The bar and restaurant is just outside the racing circuit on the canal, but it is close to the city on the Gas street basin.
It is also important to consider the shift in opinion among Tories on Birmingham city council. The other day, Councillor Zissman, the deputy leader of the Tory group, spoke of the
spite, narrow-mindedness and obvious prejudice
of my hon. Friends the Members for Ladywood, for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) and myself. Is this the same Councillor Zissman who said on 14 September that there was
great concern over the way the accounts were worked out"?
He also said that he wanted to end the subsidisation of the event by ratepayers and he questioned the financial basis of the race.
Those are the very points that have been made by my hon. Friends and myself since the end of 1988 when we found out how the accounts were being set out—because of a change in the interpretation of the preamble to the 1985 Act rather than a section of it. We realised that creative accounting was afoot. Conservative Members should ask themselves questions about their friends on Birmingham city council. It is crucial that the full cost is investigated.
I know that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) must do his bit to shut me up—that is his job—but before he does it is important to consider the latest annual report for Birmingham which says that the Bill
could pave the way for a Formula 1 Grand Prix to be held in Birmingham
We all know that the costs of Formula one grand prix are outside the scope of the Bill. They belong to another planet compared with the money we have spoken about. Hon. Members should be aware, however, that this year the British grand prix attracted 500,000 people over three days. There were 1,000 helicopter movements in and out of the circuit and 25 acres of hospitality tents. Is someone suggesting that the circuit round the inner city of Birmingham is a precursor for a grand prix? The figures that I have just given show that that is absolutely crazy. Such a claim is all part of the hype to try to sell a dud product. It is a dud product, because it is sucking up £600,000 of ratepayers' money. The money could be used to repair school playgrounds and to replace the bus passes given to disabled people. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath shares my belief that those passes should not have been removed. The money could be spent on a host of worthwhile activities.
The race should be made to pay for itself—that was the promise given to our fellow citizens of Birmingham. If such arrangements could be made, I would support the race——

Mr. Denis Howell: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Qustion put, That the question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 35.

Division No. 404]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Amess, David
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Arbuthnot, James
Hunter, Andrew


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Irvine, Michael


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Jack, Michael


Atkins, Robert
Janman, Tim


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Key, Robert


Boswell, Tim
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Boyes, Roland
Kirkhope, Timothy


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Kirkwood, Archy


Brazier, Julian
Knapman, Roger


Bright, Graham
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Buck, Sir Antony
Knox, David


Burns, Simon
Latham, Michael


Butterfill, John
Lawrence, Ivan


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Lightbown, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lilley, Peter


Carrington, Matthew
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Chapman, Sydney
Lord, Michael


Chope, Christopher
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Colvin, Michael
Maclean, David


Conway, Derek
McLoughlin, Patrick


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Mans, Keith


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Corbett, Robin
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Cormack, Patrick
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Couchman, James
Michael, Alun


Cox, Tom
Mills, Iain


Cran, James
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Moate, Roger


Dalyell, Tam
Monro, Sir Hector


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dorrell, Stephen
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Neubert, Michael


Duffy, A. E. P.
Nicholls, Patrick


Durant, Tony
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Dykes, Hugh
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Eggar, Tim
Oppenheim, Phillip


Emery, Sir Peter
Paice, James


Fallon, Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Pawsey, James


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Pendry, Tom


Fookes, Dame Janet
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Forman, Nigel
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Forth, Eric
Sackville, Hon Tom


Freeman, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Gale, Roger
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Gardiner, George
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Shersby, Michael


Golding, Mrs Llin
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Snape, Peter


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Speller, Tony


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Stern, Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
Stevens, Lewis


Harris, David
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Summerson, Hugo


Hind, Kenneth
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Howard, Michael
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Thorne, Neil


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Thornton, Malcolm


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Thurnham, Peter


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Trippier, David






Trotter, Neville
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wood, Timothy


Waller, Gary



Watts, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wheeler, John
Mr Andrew Hargreaves and Mr. David Gilroy-Bevan.


Widdecombe, Ann



Wiggin, Jerry





NOES


Callaghan, Jim
Morley, Elliot


Clay, Bob
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Cousins, Jim
Mullin, Chris


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Nellist, Dave


Dixon, Don
Patchett, Terry


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Pike, Peter L.


Eastham, Ken
Primarolo, Dawn


Flynn, Paul
Redmond, Martin


Hardy, Peter
Rooker, Jeff


Haynes, Frank
Short, Clare


Hinchliffe, David
Skinner, Dennis


Hood, Jimmy
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Illsley, Eric
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Vaz, Keith


Lamond, James
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)



Lewis, Terry
Tellers for the Noes:


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Harry Barnes.


Marek, Dr John



Morgan, Rhodri

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly:—

The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 26.

Division No. 405]
[10.11 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Durant, Tony


Amess, David
Dykes, Hugh


Arbuthnot, James
Eggar, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Emery, Sir Peter


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Fallon, Michael


Atkins, Robert
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forman, Nigel


Batiste, Spencer
Forth, Eric


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Freeman, Roger


Bermingham, Gerald
Gale, Roger


Boswell, Tim
Gardiner, George


Boyes, Roland
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bright, Graham
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Buck, Sir Antony
Hardy, Peter


Burns, Simon
Harris, David


Butterfill, John
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Haynes, Frank


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carrington, Matthew
Hind, Kenneth


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Home Robertson, John


Chapman, Sydney
Howard, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Conway, Derek
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Corbett, Robin
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Irvine, Michael


Cox, Tom
Jack, Michael


Cran, James
Janman, Tim


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dalyell, Tam
Johnston, Sir Russell


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Dixon, Don
Key, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kirkwood, Archy





Knapman, Roger
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knox, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Latham, Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shersby, Michael


Lightbown, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lilley, Peter
Snape, Peter


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stern, Michael


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Stevens, Lewis


Lord, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Maclean, David
Summerson, Hugo


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Meale, Alan
Thorne, Neil


Michael, Alun
Thornton, Malcolm


Mills, Iain
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Trippier, David


Moate, Roger
Trotter, Neville


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Monro, Sir Hector
Waller, Gary


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Watts, John


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Wheeler, John


Neubert, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Nicholls, Patrick
Wiggin, Jerry


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wood, Timothy


Oppenheim, Phillip



Paice, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Patnick, Irvine
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves and Mr. David Gilroy-Bevan.


Pawsey, James



Pendry, Tom





NOES


Callaghan, Jim
Nellist, Dave


Clay, Bob
Patchett, Terry


Cousins, Jim
Pike, Peter L.


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Primarolo, Dawn


Eastham, Ken
Redmond, Martin


Flynn, Paul
Rooker, Jeff


Hinchliffe, David
Short, Clare


Illsley, Eric
Skinner, Dennis


Lamond, James
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lewis, Terry
Spearing, Nigel


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Marek, Dr John



Morgan, Rhodri
Tellers for the Noes:


Morley, Elliot
Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Harry Barnes.


Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Question agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid.

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House.

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session.

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table.

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session.

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Environment

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8030/89 on a European Environment Agency and a European Environment Monitoring and Information Network and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of the Environment on 19th October 1989 and 9785/86 on the Fourth Environmental Action Programme (1987–1992); supports the Government's view that the proposal for a European Environment Agency and a European Environment Monitoring and Information Network provides the most appropriate means of enhancing a sound data base to inform and support Community environmental policy; and approves in general the guidelines for the Community's Fourth Environmental Action Programme.
[Relevant documents: European Community Documents Nos. 9182/88 on public access to information on the environment and 8882/89 on environment and natural resource information collection.]
I welcome the opportunity to discuss three important aspects of community legislation: first, the proposal to establish a European environment agency; secondly, the fourth environmental action programme; thirdly, public access to information on the environment. I shall address each of the issues in turn. I start by setting out—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I ask hon. Members who are not taking part in the debate to leave the Chamber quickly and quietly.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I shall start by setting out the background to the proposed European environment agency. The president of the Commission, Mr. Delors, in a speech to the European Parliament in January, spoke of the need to set up a European environmental measurement and verification system
to inform and support Community environmental policy.
The argument is that such a system on a European scale to monitor environmental quality and trends does not now exist. At present there is no guarantee that the results of environmental monitoring are comparable Communitywide. In response to this need, the Commission has drawn up a regulation to establish a European environment agency to act as a co-ordinating point, bringing together environmental information from existing national and regional networks for the use of the Commission and of member states.
There is widespread agreement throughout the Community that the establishment of such an agency would be highly desirable. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment welcomed the initiative in principle at the September meeting of the Environment Council. The creation of an independent body to enhance a sound environmental database will bring substantial benefits. Not only will it provide a firmer base for developing Community environmental policy, but it should remove many arguments about facts and figures from political dispute. In the United Kingdom our environmental monitoring arrangements are well established and comprehensive. For example, the national survey of air pollution was set up in 1961 and has registered a significant decrease in smoke and sulphur

dioxide concentration in the past 30 years. The setting up of the agency would encourage the development of systems to provide comparable information in other Community countries so that the overall picture becomes clearer.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether the new agency will have the power to require member states or firms or bodies within member states to provide the information that it requires?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It will not have coercive powers. It will operate on a voluntary basis, but I shall come on to that later in my remarks.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Surely that is not so, as that is our Government's position in relation to negotiating exactly what powers the agency should have and it has not yet been decided whether there should be powers of compulsion to provide the information.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The draft regulations make it clear that it will not have those coercive powers. There is also consensus among member states that it should not have such powers.
The regulation is now the subject of negotiations in Brussels. Explanatory memoranda have been submitted to the House summarising the present position and last Wednesday my officials gave evidence on the agency proposals to the Select Committee on the Environment, the report of which was tabled today.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Where does the Minister expect the agency to be located, and what will be the Government's recommendations in that respect?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If the hon. Gentleman will wait, I shall come to that, but the short answer is that we hope that it will be located in Britain.
I wish to say a little about the negotiations and the points still to be resolved, one of which has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh). They also concern the precise remit for the agency, its status and structure, the arrangements for establishing and running the underlying information network, and the possible role of non-Community countries.
First, we think that the work of the agency should be confined to assembling, co-ordinating and analysing data to provide an authoritative source of environmental information for the Community. Our firm view is that the agency should not have an interventionist role such as enforcement, nor should it have the right to initiate policy. Such responsibilities rest with national Governments and the European Commission under treaty powers. It would be quite wrong to delegate such functions to a third party such as the agency. Moreover, we see the benefits of the agency essentially lying in its neutrality and independence as a highly regarded professional body which will be open for use by the Commission, by national Governments and by the public.
It should nevertheless be stressed that there are other existing highly reputable international organisations involved with assembling and analysing data. I am thinking particularly of the United Nations Environment Programme and Community bodies such as the statistical office and the joint research centre. There is a clear requirement that the agency should not duplicate the work of such organisations but should draw on their expertise and experience.
It is proposed that the agency should be a small organisation comprising about 20 professional staff headed by an executive director with a management board comprising delegates from each member state and from the Commission, assisted by a scientific committee to steer the work of the agency. We welcome the proposal that the agency should be a small body and I am sure that hon. Members would agree that we should not wish to create any major extension to Community bureaucracy. It is notable that the restriction on size is due in a large extent to Britain's having pressed the idea when the agency was first mooted.
Regarding the network, the regulation proposes to require member states to identify and notify to the agency within three months the main component elements of their monitoring network. That timetable assumes that suitable networks already exist in member states and merely need to be brought together. We know that that is not the case and that arrangements for collecting information vary widely. That points to a need to extend the three-month period proposed for setting up the network. Further, there should be no legal requirement to provide information. I hope that that meets the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). We believe that the agency will operate successfully only in an atmosphere of voluntary trust and co-operation.

Mr. Michael Latham: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and I warmly welcome him to his post. Will the collection of data allow the agency to assist our agencies with matters such as the catastrophe which occurred at Rutland Water in my constituency recently, when blue-green algae resulted in the deaths of a considerable number of dogs and sheep? I am getting no sense from the National Rivers Authority or from Anglian Water about the reason why this occurred, but we need proper data and information. I expect to see the Minister about that shortly.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome. I confirm that the agency will pull together data in addition to analysing it in a form that is readily digestible. My hon. Friend, his constituents or any member of the public will have access to those data. It will assist my hon. Friend to obtain a clearer picture of what went wrong in Rutland, which should assist remedial action.
It obviously makes sense for information to be drawn together for Europe as a whole, as the Community cannot be regarded as an island. Issues of transfrontier pollution are of vital importance. We believe that third countries should be invited to participate in the agency, and that initially that should be on an informal and advisory basis. Clearly, we should wish to avoid third countries directing the work of the agency without the approval of Community member states.

Mr. Michael Morris: What communications have there been with the Council of Europe, particularly through the Council of Ministers? It seems more appropriate for the agency to be a Council of Europe initiative, rather than just an EEC initiative.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I cannot confirm what communications have been received from the Council of

Europe, but informal approaches have been made by other European states which in the longer term wish to participate in the work of the agency.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Is the Minister saying that the EEC environmental agency will supplement or replace the National Rivers Authority, or does he think that the NRA, under the Government appointee, Lord Crickhowell, is not up to the job? Will the agency supplement the NRA, add to it or make it work?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The agency will not supplant the work of the NRA, which is set on a firm foundation and which will, I am sure, do excellent work under its appointed chairman.
Other member states have expressed much support for the United Kingdom position. The agency proposal is due to be discussed at the Environment Council on 28 November, and with such a high degree of consensus the French presidency hopes for political agreement on the general terms of the regulation.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has not only publicly welcomed the idea of the agency but has offered to host it in the United Kingdom. We believe that the United Kingdom has a strong case and that siting it here would afford opportunity for links with the many centres of excellence in this country. I am sure that the House will support our efforts to have the agency sited in this country.
The fourth environmental action programme is the second subject to be discussed today. On 19 October 1987, the Environment Council adopted a resolution which notes and approves in general the guidelines of the fourth environmental action programme 1987–92. It also welcomes the Single European Act which introduced an environmental chapter into the treaty of Rome. The action programme represents the Commission's agenda for future environment policy and outlines its ideas for specific proposals. It is not legally binding. The member states approved its overall approach through a general resolution without commitment to any of the detailed proposals. The Commission is free to select which proposals to develop, whether they be in this programme or not.
Agreement has already been reached on many parts of the action programme, including directives on vehicle emissions, pesticide use, reductions in pollution from large-scale coal-fired power stations, control of major accident hazards and the protection of workers. Regulations governing trade in endangered species of animals and plants and restrictions on pesticides and chlorofluorocarbons have also been adopted. The Government have played a leading role in shaping those agreements. The programme also stresses the need for improved public access to information on the environment, which the Government fully endorse. We therefore warmly welcome the fundamental principles embodied in the current draft directive on public access to environmental information, which is the third item under discussion today.
We have long endorsed these principles at home. We have welcomed the recommendation of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution that there should be a presumption in favour of unrestricted public access to information held by pollution control authorities and we have made substantial progress in providing for that


access. The Water Act 1989, for example, provides for public registers of water pollution controls. There are registers of notices dealing with air pollution and pesticides. We recently proposed a major extension of the system of public registers under our proposals for the new systems of integrated pollution control and local authority air pollution control.
We have pursued the same goal in Brussels. During our last presidency of the Community we proposed a resolution calling for
unrestricted access throughout the Community to information which pollution control authorities obtain or receive by virtue of their legislative powers, with provision for secrecy only in those circumstances where a genuine case for it can be substantiated on the grounds of commercial confidentiality or national security or other appropriate grounds".
Such access can only be good for all parties—for industry and for the public. Secrecy breeds suspicion, suspicion breed doubts, doubts breed fears, and fears help no one. Our commitment to the principles of the draft directive is unequivocal.
As I have already made clear, the approach that we have embraced in Britain for providing access to information is based on public registers. It provides easy access to all the important information in a readily digestible form. All parties know what is involved. The administrative burden is more containable. A number of our Community partners have adopted the same approach. We are keen to ensure that it will be viewed as fully answering the spirit and the letter of the draft directive. We also believe that further work is needed to make explicit the concepts behind the text and to clarify the phraseology.
With those provisos, we welcome the directive. We are taking an active part in working to clarify and refine the text. Our aim, which I have no doubt that the House will share, is to secure a clear and watertight directive which will ensure that there is a full, fair and workable system of public access to environmental information and that it is provided throughout the Community. I invite the House to comment on these three items of Community business and I shall do my best to respond to any points later in the debate, or afterwards if that is more appropriate.

Mr. Allan Roberts: The issues before us have not been finally resolved in Europe. Some of the decisions to which the Minister referred are not final decisions but cases being argued by the Government in Europe, no doubt with the support of some other member countries.
I should like to speak mainly about the European environment agency, the fourth environmental action programme and public access to environmental information. The motion calls for the House to note the EC documents on the establishment of a European environment agency and a European environment monitoring and information network. We have before us the draft regulations for the establishment of a Eurowide agency and the proposals listing the sort of environmental action programme issues that would be the subject of inquiry by the agency and network.
Public access to environmental information is important. The Government are going part of the way towards satisfying the Opposition's demands. The latest Community proposals are pretty comprehensive. They originate from the Commission's statement to the European Parliament on 16 January 1989, as the Minister

said. The Labour party strongly supports the establishment of this kind of information collection and research agency and verification system to ensure that individual European countries have their records, claims and statistics about the environment verified.
As usual, Her Majesty's Government have given only a half-hearted welcome to the measure. They claim to welcome the proposals. They say that they accept that such a European environmental monitoring network should be established, but they do not want it to be constituted in such a way as to make it really effective. Indeed, they have admitted as much tonight. As usual, the Government
Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer,
And, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer".
They are adopting their usual tactic of trying to slow down the agency's implementation and insisting on restricting its functioning, so preventing an effective agency from being established.
They do not want the agency to have power to require member countries to provide information. What would be the point of such a body? The Government believe that the agency's mandate should be confined to collecting and co-ordinating statistical data. They do not want it to undertake any enforcement role or to have the right to initiate policy.
The Labour party does not want the agency to usurp the powers of the Commission or of sovereign Parliaments in Europe. But the right to propound or advocate policy initiatives would not necessarily do that. The right of inquiry and the right to require member states to provide information would not do that. The agency cannot function effectively if it cannot require those involved to provide information and give evidence. Once established, the agency must have power to force member states to give evidence and permit inquiry into records and institutions.
The Government claim that co-operation and willing participation should be the way forward. We do not believe that the Government would co-operate in exposing their own polluting record. It is not surprising that they are unwilling to establish an agency with legal powers to take action or require action to be initiated. In view of the Government's record—on rewriting environment statistics and avoiding EEC directives and initiatives on the environment—they see this agency as another means by which their appalling record would be exposed.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Considering that 18 months ago the hon. Gentleman and his party would have denounced this proposal from the Commission as a gross piece of interference in British policy, but are now pretending to be pro-European and are welcoming this proposal, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why we should listen to the pompous lecture that he is now giving, when the Government have an excellent record on proposing green and anti-pollution measures?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman does not have to listen. He can go home if he does not want to hear common sense. There is no point in establishing an agency that does not have power to carry out its responsibilities, and that means effectively monitoring and controlling.
A strong agency would expose, for example, Her Majesty's Government's refusal to set a date for implementing the EEC directive on bathing beaches. Perhaps the Minister will give details of the real condition


of our drinking water and beaches. People living near the beaches know the state they are in. They are polluted along the length of our coastline.
Polluting private water companies have been exempted by the Government from prosecution. That would be an ideal subject for the agency to investigate. No wonder the Government want to limit its scope and power.
What we are discussing does not have much to do with the Common Market, for we are talking of a Europewide agency that would cover all European countries wishing to co-operate in the provision of environmental statistics. This has nothing to do with whether one is pro or anti-EEC.
Is it possible that Her Majesty's Government would wish to co-operate freely in the collection of statistics and information about nitrate fertiliser pollution, the overuse of harmful pesticides and the effect of that on drinking water and on polluting our rivers and coastal waterways? That would make a very good subject for a European agency inquiry.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Given that the hon. Gentleman said that in these issues he is not pro or anti the Community and therefore he is trying desperately to be fair, will he acknowledge that this country is by no means behind in terms of chasing European standards for environmental cleanliness? Will he also acknowledge that the world waterskiing championships in Barcelona were cancelled because the skiers did not want to ski on raw sewage? That would not have happened if the championships had been held off our shores.

Mr. Roberts: At times, the Government are successful at cobbling something together with other polluting nations such as Spain and France which are not famous for their concern for the environment. Other countries are at fault as well as Britain. However, Britain does not have a particularly good record. We are being prosecuted by the Community because of our drinking water and we are in breach of the Community directive on bathing beaches. Only Britain amoing the western European countries has exempted private water companies from prosecution for pollution because of the Government's desire to make water a successful flotation.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Britain's record is one of the best in Europe? He is implying that Britain is competing for the bottom place.

Mr. Roberts: We are one of the worst countries in Europe in this respect. We are known as the dirty man of Europe.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): How many infraction proceedings for breaches of environmental directives have been brought against this country in the European Court of Justice?

Mr. Roberts: I would love to tell the House, but I do not know. Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us. We are the only country that refuses to join the 30 per cent. club of countries that are supposed to be reducing sulphur emissions. We are the only country to wage a major campaign against the catalytic converter, claiming that the lean-burn engine would solve the problems. The Secretary

of State has only assumed his new position because of the chaos caused by his predecessor in relation to our record on the environment and the EC. The facts were altered under the previous Secretary of State and we were pilloried continually and rightly for failing to take the necessary action required by the EC, not just in terms of the directives, but in all the discussions. In the Council of Ministers and elsewhere in Europe, Britain has been fighting a rearguard action to slow progress down. We did that with the catalytic converters and many other things.

Mr. Bob Cryer: My hon. Friend need not take too much notice of the Secretary of State for the Environment. He recently visited Bradford and poured praise on the Tory clique there. The Tory council in Bradford is about to embark on a major breach of the green belt in Bradford—which is already far too small. That is the sort of action that this supposedly green Secretary of State supports.

Mr. Roberts: I can understand the Secretary of State wanting an agency that does not have any powers to compel evidence or information to be provided, particularly as that would show up the Government's record on the environment. Our drinking water and the pollution of our rivers and coastal waters by nitrates and fertilisers would be an ideal subject for an agency inquiry. However, the Government would not want their record on those issues exposed.
If the system was voluntary, the Government would not co-operate with such an inquiry or provide the accurate information required. Would they co-operate in a statistical inquiry into the pollution of the atmosphere unless they were forced to? The Minister was seeking praise for the Government's record. As I said earlier, the Government refuse to join the 30 per cent. group of countries that want to reduce sulphur emissions. Unlike Germany, which is retro-fitting nearly all its fossil fuel power stations, this country is retro-fitting only one before the next general election and the retro-fitting of Fiddler's Ferry power station has been cancelled.
Of course, a Euro agency investigating the Government's real record on CFCs—not the one covered by their publicity statements—and on the ozone layer would be embarrassing to the Government, as would their appalling and abysmal record of energy and transport policies, which will continue to increase carbon dioxide emissions until at least the year 2000. The United Kingdom contributes 10 per cent. of the world's total production of CFCs—a massive amount. The Prime Minister hosted a conference at which she made a speech about the problem and then said that the free market should deal with it. She and the Government still refuse to ban CFCs in aerosols.
By having an effective ban on aerosols, the Government would meet their obligations as outlined by the Montreal agreement. Even if Britain reduced the present use of CFCs by 90 per cent., we would still use more CFCs than India does. ICI is the world's second largest producer of CFCs and the largest producer in Europe. Britain produces three times more CFCs than India and China together. Last year, the United Kingdom exported CFCs to 117 countries, 80 of which have not signed the Montreal agreement. The United Kingdom is the largest exporter of CFCs in Europe.
We are reducing the use of CFCs in this country by 50 per cent. but production by only 35 per cent., and are selling the difference to developing countries as though they have a different ozone layer. The Government would not want their record on glabal warming adequately to be exposed; nor do they wish to provide information. Because of their energy and transport policies, the Government will remain one of the main contributors to the production of greenhouse gases, despite their lip service to the problem in the Netherlands. CEGB energy projections given to the House of Commons Select Committee on Energy were that, in the year 2005, carbon dioxide production in the electricity supply industry in England and Wales will be up to 26 per cent. greater than in 1987.
The biggest source of carbon dioxide emissions is power stations. The second biggest source is transport. Under this Government, vehicle traffic miles will increase by 83 per cent. to 142 per cent. by the year 2025. The Open university calculates that carbon dioxide emissions will increase by 60 million to 130 million tonnes, on top of the 98 million tonnes now being emitted from road traffic. They are the Government's policies and their own projections, yet they pay lip service to doing something about the greenhouse effect. The truth is that they do not want their record on this issue to be adequately investigated by a European environmental agency.
Do the Government really want their record on this save-the-world issue to be the subject of EEC agency scrutiny? Of course not. They will avoid that at any cost. Why do they not want non-EEC European countries to be involved in such an agency? To exclude, perhaps, the environmentally conscious and concerned Scandinavian countries. If Norway, Sweden and Denmark were involved and, perhaps, Austria and other countries, we could never muster the anti-environmental majority that we sometimes manage to cobble together in the EEC. The British Government object also to identifying and notifying to the agency within three months of its establishment the main elements in our national environmental monitoring networks. Surely we do not need more than three months just to tell the agency what we already have. It is a delaying tactic by the Government.
The Government ask how confidentiality would be dealt with. That is another red herring. It would be dealt with in the same way as it is dealt with in similar institutions and organisations. No claim for commercial confidentiality should be allowed to justify a refusal to provide the truth about industries' polluting activities.
What is required is the establishment of a European environmental agency, but beyond the boundaries of the EEC, and a monitoring and information network. However, that will be effective only in the context of a British environmental protection agency. Indeed, that should be a keystone of any green Bill that the Government introduce and is the answer to those who say that power would move away from Britain with the establishment of a European agency. We need a really powerful British protection agency, with powers to enforce pollution control and to bring together control of land, water and air pollution. The principle of integrated pollution control should be established—I hope that it will be—in the Government's green Bill.
An environmental protection agency should be established and given real powers to criticise and prosecute industry—private and public—local authorities, central Government institutions and Ministries. It should he truly

independent of Government and take over the National Rivers Authority and other inspectorates, such as Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. It should have adequate staffing and resources. A Ministry of Environmental Protection should be established, with its own inspectorate and establishment. A Labour Government would carry all those suggestions into law.
The public have a right to know. Access to information is fundamental to environment protection. While industry can keep secret its discharges, waste products and processes, it will continue to be, at best, a source of suspicion. The Environmental Protection Agency that has been established in the United States of America is linked with a Community Right To Know Act. That should form a blueprint for the type of legislation that is required in this country and in Europe. Such legislation would be vital for the satisfactory working of an EPA. It would also aid the work of the Department of the Environment. The United States right-to-know legislation calls for access to information on the amount of raw material entering a works, the products, the amount of waste and the type of waste treatment or disposal route. Under a Labour Government, industry would not—it should not now—be allowed to use commercial confidentiality to deny freedom of access to information about discharges into the environment.
When the Secretary of State was given his present job, we issued a 10-point challenge to see whether the Government were serious about their attitude to the environment and to the fourth Community environmental action programme. We wanted to know whether policies really had changed since the former Secretary of State was sent off to the Department of Trade and Industry. We asked the present Secretary of State to reverse the exemptions from prosecution for causing pollution that have been given to private water companies and to set dates when Britain will comply with EEC directives on bathing beaches and drinking water standards. The Department of the Environment, under the new Secretary of State, has refused to do so. To help reduce global warming, we wanted the Secretary of State to launch a programme of energy conservation and to make available Government grants. The former Secretary of State for Energy cut the previous programme. A new programme still has not been launched and there has been no reversal of policy.
We called on the Government to join the club of European countries that are committed to reducing sulphur emissions by 30 per cent. to prevent acid rain, but this Secretary of State takes the same attitude as the previous one. We asked the Government to reverse the decision on the Rose theatre site and to make it a scheduled ancient monument, but this Secretary of State is as concerned about our heritage as the previous one was. We asked this Secretary of State to establish, in co-operation with local government, a programme to recover CFCs already banked in the environment in disused fridges, but the Department has refused to do so. We said that this Secretary of State should abandon the proposals of the previous Secretary of State to privatise waste disposal. However, the Government still intend to establish arm's-length companies to run waste disposal services and to privatise waste disposal. They intend to put the control of monitoring toxic waste into the market, where the profit motive will be more important than concern for the environment.
We asked this Secretary of State to restrict imports of toxic waste into Britain, but he has refused to do so. We asked the Secretary of State to bring forward a comprehensive dog registration scheme; he refuses to do so. We have asked him to support the speedy implementation of the three-way catalytic converter into all types of British vehicle, accepting the 1991 date for small vehicles that was proposed by Europe, but he refuses to do so. We asked the Secretary of State to abandon Nick Ridley's—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Order."] Conservative Members seem to want to be here long into the night. We asked him to abandon the decision of the former Secretary of State to dismantle the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission. On all counts the Government have been found wanting.
The Secretary of State has done hardly anything since he took over the job. The EC environmental action programme will expose that failure, especially if the agency is given the power to require evidence.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: The Government's support for environmental improvements is amply demonstrated by the presence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. He takes such issues seriously, and this is an important debate. How sad it is that the shadow Secretary of State could not be bothered to attend to hear what the House had to say.
The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), for some reason which is no doubt obvious to other hon. Members, gave way until he gave way to my right hon. Friend who asked him a pertinent question. He asked how many prosecutions there had been against the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman said that he did not know the answer. This debate is about European statistics, but the hon. Gentleman has not collected any. I shall give the answer. Between 1983 and 1989, there were no prosecutions against the United Kingdom Government by the European Court, in comparison with 64 prosecutions against other European Community countries. That is the mark of our Government's sincerity in comparison with others.
It is true that action has been taken against the United Kingdom on water standards, but, in common with other hon. Friends, I find it curious that no action has been taken against other member states. When the Select Committee on the Environment visited Italy during its consideration of the problems of contaminated land and toxic waste, the local authorities in Milan told us that all the sewage from Milan and the surrounding suburbs is discharged straight into the River Po and out into the Adriatic. What action has been taken against the Italian Government? None. It is no coincidence that the European environmental Commissioner happens to be an Italian.
This is an important matter. That is why the Select Committee on the Environment thought it right to consider the issue to try to come up with a report for the House in time for this debate. That report is ready, and I shall refer to its various recommendations.
It is right that our Government should welcome the creation of the European Environment Agency. They did not do so half-heartedly, as the hon. Member for Bootle

suggested. Civil servants giving evidence to the Select Committee told us that the Government warmly welcomed the proposal. It is wecome because one cannot develop environmental policy without the reliable statistics necessary to establish what corrective action should be taken and what directives should be issued by the Commission. Unlike some of my hon. Friends, I believe that it is natural for environmental policy to be considered at European level, precisely because so much pollution is transboundary that it can be dealt with only through international co-operation.
It would be helpful to the House if we considered the recommendations—they were unanimous—of the Select Committee. The Committee considered the powers of the agency. I shall quote those recommendations verbatim, so that no misinterpretation is possible. The Select Committee said:
We agree with the Department of the Environment that the proposed Agency should not be intrusive of Member States whether by way of inspection, enforcement of policy making. We would support any proposal to ensure that its duties are carefully defined and do not go beyond acting in an advisory capacity. In view of its proposed functions, we consider that its full title—with its inevitable reminders of the United States Environmental Protection Agency—is misleading; and feel that it would be more appropriate to limit the name".
If the agency were to have executive powers, it would involve the creation of a huge bureaucracy which would have to draw together the different experiences and abilities of member states. That may be possible in the dim and distant future, but it is not practical if we are to get the agency going now.
The second Select Committee recommendation referred to the Corine programme and the avoidance of duplication and overlapping. There are other agencies collecting statistics—the European Environmental Statistics Office, the United Nations organisation to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred and others—and it is important to ensure that statistics are not duplicated. I questioned civil servants on that point but I did not receive a satisfactory answer. When I asked about the European Environmental Statistics Office, Mr. MacCormack, on behalf of the Department, said:
We have got one of those already.
I asked:
What is the difference between the two?
He replied:
The Statistical Office, in as far as it looks at environmental statistics, for example, is very much concerned with numbers and collecting numbers and not with the analysis of such numbers, so that it is the provision of pure statistics; whereas the Agency is seen as more than that. It is seen as dealing with scientific environmental information and going further than just pure statistics.
In that case, why cannot the remit of the European Environmental Statistics Office be widened so that it collects the numbers and analyses them as well? Why do we have to have two such bodies? Cannot some saving be made in trying to bring the statistics together?
Thirdly, the Select Committee felt that at present the agency should be limited to members of the Community in order to get it off the ground. In due course it will be sensible to bring in other states within Europe—not just western Europe, but eastern Europe and beyond. As I have already said, many of the issues of transboundary pollution go far wider than just EEC member states.


However, in practical terms it seems sensible to start with a proposal that can get off the ground rather than one that would fall at the first fence.
Among the issues that have to be tackled are the financial and voting rights of non-EEC Governments. One of the Select Committee's recommendations is that when the negotiations take place, procedures should be developed so that in due course non-member states that wish to take part can do so on proper terms.
There was reference earlier to the involvement of non-governmental organisations—NGOs. I do not think that it would be right to lose the benefit of the immense experience and statistical base that many of those organisations have, whether they are European bodies collecting statistics for a particular industry or organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. Unlike the French presidency, the Select Committee did not feel that it was appropriate for NGOs to be represented on the management board because it would be difficult to determine which NGOs should be represented, how they should be appointed and so on. However, we would wish to see their experience drawn on to the maximum extent through co-operation.
Also, there is the question of location. The Select Committee strongly supported the Government's stance on wishing to see the agency located in the United Kingdom. We have tremendous expertise. The British Antarctic Survey is just one source of that expertise. It would be appropriate to seek to have the agency located in the United Kingdom in conjunction with one of the distinguished academic bodies located here already.
One domestic point involves the staffing of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the Department of the Environment. The Committee recognised that the creation of this agency would not have a huge impact on such staffing, but clearly it would have some. When I questioned civil servants on this matter, I did not receive a clear answer about whether there would be an appropriate increase in staffing levels to deal with the work involved. I hope that this point will be taken on board in due course.
The Select Committee has produced this report, which I hope will be helpful to the Government and the House. This is a most useful debate to take place at this time, with the consideration of what to do being due on 28 November which is not far away. I commend the report to the House.

Sir Russell Johnston: I shall not detain the House long, but I wish to say one or two things, none of them in agreement with the speeches that I have heard.
The Government have been telling us that they are in favour of this European environment agency, and would even like its headquarters to be in some green glade somewhere in the United Kingdom. All that sounds very good, but it is not as good as it sounds because we are not at all happy about the Government's attitude to the scope and powers of the proposed agency.
The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) will not be surprised to learn that the position that I am about to adopt is different from his. The Prime Minister's much-advertised concern about the environment was symbolised by that zonker—if that is the proper word—of a headline which appeared in the Evening Standard last

week, "Thatcher's plan to save the world". If the Prime Minister is as determined about these matters as she says she is—I am not questioning that—we would have expected a much more positive reaction to the proposal than we have seen.
This proposal is for a network to deal with atmospheric emissions and quality, water resources and their quality, the marine environment. soil erosion and pollution and nature conservancy, which includes land use.
I have no doubt—it seems to be agreed across the House—that there is a good case for a common statistical unit on pollution. As the Minister said, monitoring procedures vary across the Community, so it is difficult to obtain proper comparisons. Therefore, it would be good to do so. For example, diesel emissions from vehicles are measured differently; some countries measure it by smoke density and others by what are called suspended particulates. In case any hon. Member wishes to interrupt to ask me what a suspended particulate is, I do not know.

Mr. Allan Roberts: It is like a Conservative.

Sir Russell Johnston: I thought that it was like a ministerial statement. The basic point is that there are different systems of measurement and since we are all affected by the pollution, we need common systems. A European monitoring and information network is a good idea.
As the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) said, such a system can be effective only if there is a compulsion element. If not, there is simply a patchwork of information and anything, in any country, which is embarrassing will be concealed, held back and will not be voluntarily and happily provided. I do not see the sense of that.
The supplementary explanatory memorandum that the Government have kindly made available says:
Arrangements for establishing and running the Network should be based on the principle of free co-operation".
Polluters do not want free co-operation, but to get on with polluting, or they would not be doing it in the first place. It is absurd to suggest that an agency of this sort can be established on that basis.
As the hon. Member for Bootle pointed out two or three times—rightly so—we are talking about a body that has not been established but is about to be discussed and decided on, and about what the Government's attitude to it should be. The Government should adopt the attitude that the agency has some future role in directing environmental matters in a supranational way. It is only sensible that an agency should be able not only to collect statistics but to interpret them and recommend courses of action. It would seem reasonable to leave room for the agency to grow into a regulatory body, if circumstances require. I do not dissent from the view of the hon. Member for Bootle, who wanted a British agency, independent of Government, to regulate pollution. So what is the argument against a European agency? There is no logical argument.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The EEC has too much power already.

Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman should realise——

Mr. Skinner: It will be worse when the Germans get together.

Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman should leave behind his characteristically old-fashioned views——

Mr. Skinner: indicated dissent.

Sir Russell Johnston: Does the hon. Gentleman want me to repeat what I said?

Mr. Skinner: I am listening carefully.

Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman should realise that such regulation need not and should not be bureaucratic—it should be controlled by the European Parliament in a proper democratic way.
The Government have approached this too narrowly; worse, they are not taking advantage of a tremendous opportunity for European co-operation to control pollution supranationally. That is what this country should argue for.

Mr. Michael Morris: I very much welcome this concept. There is certainly a need to pull together data from across Europe. Those of us who have been appointed to the Council of Europe know that one of the missing elements at present is a common databank and the sharing of experience of environmental matters.
The Minister was right to say that there is a wealth of experience in this country. We have heard about the British Antarctic Survey. This country was also in the vanguard of the campaign to save the whale. It is therefore rather churlish of Opposition Members to denigrate the stance adopted by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has consistently suggested ways forward to help to protect the environment, not just in Europe but across the world.
I will certainly support my hon. Friend the Minister's stance. The Commission should be the starting point. Broadcasting was dealt with first by the Commission, but the Council of Europe ended up as the body which provided the transfrontier broadcasting initiative. The 12 member countries of the EEC constitute too narrow a forum to deal with environmental matters—the 23 members of the Council of Europe should all be brought in and play a key role.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister. This is a worthwhile start and I wish him a fair wind.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The issue that I wish to raise is to be found on page 57 of the fourth action plan and concerns remote sensing from space. This important activity would be best done by the agency, and it is inadequately organised now.
A month ago, M. and M. Norman and Company organised in Glasgow a conference on the tropical rain forest. At the conference there was a powerful contribution from Professor Malcolm Wilkins, editor of "Plant Biology" and a distinguished plant biologist. After a great deal of consideration and the application of much knowledge, he took the view that one of the most useful things that Europe could do was to provide remote sensing facilities to countries with rain forest problems. Such facilities could also be used for all sorts of problems on our own continent.
After Professor Wilkins raised the matter, I took it up with the Government and received a reply from the Minister for Overseas Development that I wish briefly to challenge. The Minister's letter says:
The suggestion that satellite remote sensing could be used for these purposes has come from a number of quarters. We have investigated what can be achieved by using satellites in this area, including through discussions with the World Bank.
Our conclusion is that satellites are a useful tool in monitoring changes in forest area, but that the results obtained are subject to a significant margin of error. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations is using satellite technology as part of their ongoing inventory of global forest resources, which is expected to be completed in the early 1990s. However, it is difficult to identify selective felling or shrubbery regrowth in forests with satellite technology.
No one has suggested that that should be done. Satellite technology is one of the tools, not an overall answer. The letter continues:
Likewise, satellites cannot tell us much about the health of the forest—for example they may show apparently healthy tree tops in a forest which might, when seen on the ground, have no underbrush and no young trees. In addition, currently available civilian satellites do not provide sufficiently accurate images to detect clearance from some areas of shifting cultivation, which is widely practised in many developing countries.
There are other ways of looking at the important question of the canopy and there is an argument for having at least one or two airships to glide over it. The Government say in the letter:
We will certainly be keeping abreast of developments in this field, not least through our scientific arm, the Overseas Development Natural Resources Institute (ODNRI), which makes extensive use of satellite information in their land use work. We shall also be active in continuing to consider how satellite techniques and information can help in our collaborative forestry projects in developing countries …
If that is the situation, it is this type of agency which could get the strings together to provide the important finance and techniques, which are expensive, and it should be done on a European rather than a national basis. I am not unreasonable and I do not expect the Minister to answer off the top of his head in his winding-up speech. However, I should like his Department to look carefully at the work of the overseas development department and to find out from the considerable technical advice that is available, and especially from Professor Malcolm Wilkins and his colleagues in the department of botany in Glasgow university, whether something should be done by the agency that is to be set up.

Mr. Michael Latham: The knowledge of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on scientific matters is greatly respected and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will reply to him appropriately. Perhaps we may come back from space to land and specifically to water, and to the issue that I raised in an intervention during the Minister's speech: the environmental disaster that took place in Rutland Water in my constituency when about 20 dogs—no one knows exactly how many—and 15 sheep died from chewing or eating blue-green algae at the beginning of September or the end of August. I am in favour of an environmental agency and glad to see that the Government support it because I hope that it will enable a database to be established which will bring together the scientific evidence of how such a thing can happen and prevent it from happening in the future.
The explanation given is that this resulted entirely from the interaction of the sun and nutrients in the water, but my constituents are not satisfied. They have not been given an explanation of why it happened in this year, and why only the water in that reservoir caused animal deaths. I have not had any satisfactory explanation, either from Anglian Water or from the National Rivers Authority, although I know that the authority is continuing its investigation.
I have to say with regret to my hon. Friend the Minister that I have been disappointed in the replies that I have received from Ministers to parliamentary questions about this matter. The other day, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning used the expression "normal seasonal phenomenon". However, the explanation from Anglian Water is that this was an exceptional situation resulting from the exceptional conditions this year. If that is so, it cannot be a normal seasonal phenomenom. They cannot both be right. Such points need clarifying.
I have pressed Anglian Water to pay compensation to the people who have lost animals, and also to the companies that have lost business because of the closure of the reservoir. I regret that that has been rejected. I want the agency to be able to look into, and to draw together, the necessary statistical information about whether this should have been foreseen. The stuff did not build up overnight. It built up over two or three weeks. I have not yet had any satisfactory explanation as to whether this could or should have been foreseen. If sufficient scientific evidence had been available, it should have been available not only on a British but a European basis, to prevent such a thing from ever happening again.
I wish my hon. Friend the Minister a fair wind with setting up this agency, but I want to see it taking the opportunity, as quickly as possible, to draw together the necessary scientific information and to publish it. When I asked my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning to place in the Library the information produced by Dundee university and the National Rivers Authority, I am sorry to say that he ignored that part of my question. As the constituency Member of Parliament, I expect to be supplied with that information by Ministers as quickly as possible. If I do not get it from Ministers, I expect it from the new environmental agency.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Latham: I do not expect to get it from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman has illustrated clearly how damaging information about the environment is not even given to Members of Parliament by a Government who are reluctant to provide it. Now, an agency will be set up in Europe that will not have powers to require that such information to be given to it.

Mr. Latham: I expect to be provided with the information shortly because I shall see the Minister shortly. I expect, on that occasion, to receive the information. I leave my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with that thought.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: I welcome this EC initiative towards the creation of a European environmental agency. What is being offered is a Europewide information system, and the creation of a European standard for information collection and analysis. That is the first and necessary step towards the knowledge on which proper environmental protection action can be based. The proposal builds on, rather than replaces, existing environmental agencies, and will therefore be a co-ordination and co-operation body.
I welcome the comments that show that the international aspect of these matters may be extended beyond the boundaries of the European Community, and the fact that the Government have stated their wish to see EFTA countries included. However, I hope that this desire will not be used merely as an excuse to delay action within the EEC. European Community agencies, once set up, should be the basis from which wider co-operation extends, rather than international agreement being sought before European Community action takes place.
I also welcome the scope of the agency's work, on atmosphere, water and marine environment, biotopes and nature conservation. This is adequate, and allows for future comprehensive action. Article 4(4) says:
There will be no restrictions to publication of data or its dissemination to the public.
That is an important safeguard, if the agency is to have a watchdog role, but it is a great pity that lack of powers to gather information detracts from this article.
The agency must not be allowed to be a bureaucracy. It must be a functional body working because of the importance and the nature of the environmental tasks which confront the whole of Europe. We are making a small start when we compare the proposed agency with the powers of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. As the agency develops, I ask the Government not to think it down. We must build on these beginnings and construct a proper Europewide organisation that is capable of tackling the immense environmental problems of the continent.
I wish to see the creation of a Scottish environment protection agency working nationally within a European context and ensuring that Scotland's environmental needs are properly met. The proposed merger of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission should present an opportunity to create such a Scottish environment protection body, but it must be properly financed and imaginatively organised.
I note that seven EC states are bidding to house the new European agency, with its annual budget of £3·5 billion. I ask the Government to ensure that it is based in Scotland. With our unique combination of a special environment and universities, as well as existing research institutions, a compelling case can and should be made for the siting of the agency in Scotland. Existing Scottish-based expertise can be of service to the whole of Europe.
I am sure that the Minister will understand that his wish to see it sited somewhere in the United Kingdom is not good enough from my point of view. I wish to hear him say that the agency will go to Scotland. I commend to the Minister's attention the proposals of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) on this subject and urge him to support the Scottish case. I hope that the


Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is sitting beside him, will be urging such a course on the Government.
If we are properly to tackle environmental protection, we require a European body that is involved fully in research, action that is based on that research and conservation that is based on a dynamic interaction with the environment. That requires a comprehensive approach that links urban and rural needs and utilises interdisciplinary scientific skills. If properly instituted environmental protection measures can create employment, it is not necessarily a negative activity. Indeed, it should not be that. The real task is to safeguard the rights of future generations. That is basically what the debate is about. That is what the agency, and other agencies that are connected with it, should do. "Protect and survive" is a slogan with real meaning in this context.
I wish the new agency well. I hope that it will be allowed to grow equal to the environmental task that it faces. I hope also to hear from the Government that they are committed to allowing the agency to meet that challenge and carry out the task.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The excellent speech of the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) perhaps summarised what the debate is about. As a Scottish Member, he wisely urged us to ensure that the European agency is located in Scotland. He argued that there should be a Scottish agency as well, which would similarly be located in Scotland. There would be lots of jobs, and everyone would be happy.
We have had a debate in which every participant has welcomed the agency. It would be rather sad to send the report of it to Brussels, or wherever it goes, without at least one Member saying that the proposal is a load of rubbish.
It is proposed that we set up yet another useless quango. That is strange when we have a Government who have prided themselves on the abolition of quangos. When we are dealing with the EEC, we seem to delight in the creation of more and more semi-quangos. They have no real powers and they duplicate the work that is already done by half a dozen agencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) raised an important constituency issue, and one which I would have been extremely worried about. He must know, however, that the agency will not have any powers to do anything about it.
The Opposition say that the Government's environment policies are rubbish, and some of my hon. Friends say that they are not. We all know, however, that the agency will not have any powers to do anything to overcome the problems. It is being suggested that we should have a great new body, which will have conferences, seminars and newspapers. I am sure that there are many of them, in Scotland and in Southend. They will spend a great deal of money and create lots of jobs and the whole thing will be a total waste of time and money.
At a time when the average family in Britain is paying £3 a week as a net contribution to the EEC and more than £13 extra for food simply because of the EEC, we should

have a Conservative Government who question whether there is any point in these foolish quangos being established as they are established in Europe.
As the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) will be aware, we have made constitutional progress too. So far as I am aware, for the first time the European Parliament will be nominating two members to the new body, and the Government are required to appoint a representative who will be in a co-operative frame of mind as regards co-operation between the agency and member states. Apart from the fact that I am unlikely to be considered for that, I think that it is quite outrageous for Euro-legislation to require states to appoint people with particular points of view and particular attitudes. Yet it is here, in article 6.

Sir Russell Johnston: Does not the hon. Gentleman admit that the Government appoint people with particular points of view to boards?

Mr. Taylor: The Government are entitled to do what they want within the law because they are a democratically elected Government. That is what democracy is all about. But we do not have a law requiring them to appoint people of a particular character. That seems to be a rather strange new initiative, but we shall probably see a lot more of it.
We are all delighted to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on the Front Bench, because his honesty and integrity would be a credit to any Government of any party. First, will he tell us what the cost will be? The CORINE programme was set up in 1985. We were told it was to be a closely safeguarded organisation which would spend only a limited amount of money. That money was £3 million. We know that it has already spent £4 million and now it appears that it is trying to spend £8 million.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Does it fit the hon. Gentleman's conspiracy theory that the only mention of money in the document is tucked away at the back and in French?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman will find it in English as well, if he turns to page 16, but that is irrelevant.
Secondly, can my hon. Friend the Minister tell me how duplication will be stopped. The Select Committee did a splendid job saying that it is a shame to have lots of organisations doing the same thing, but the Minister must know that no organisation will stop what it is doing. The OECD will not stop doing what it is doing so splendidly; the United Nations environmental centre will not stop its excellent work, nor will the joint research centre. There will be yet another body holding more conferences and collecting more information.
Thirdly, what on earth is the point of establishing a harmless body to do work which is already being done by several organisations? It is a body without any powers. As the Minister said, it will have no right to tell Britain, Greece, Portugal, Sweden or France or any country within or outwith the EEC what to do. That seems quite crazy.
Finally, the agency is meant to advise us on European environmental policy. That is the height of hypocrisy. We know that European environmental policy consists of being very tough on any individual or organisation that creates pollution except farmers. Although we know that agriculture is one of the greatest polluters in Europe, farmers seem to be totally exempt from restrictions and penalties. In regard to nitrates, for example, although the


Single European Act states clearly that the polluter should pay, the Government are about to produce legislation to offer compensation to the agricultural bodies for not creating so much pollution.
Although everyone will be happy to see the Common Market creating another body that will not cause too much trouble but will cost much money, we should occasionally think about ratepayers in places such as Southend, whose water rates are being increased substantially—[Interruption] Opposition Members should not laugh, because poor and simple people, some rich and wise people and ordinary people will have to pay much more this year to sort out the serious problem of pollution, which is created solely by the activities of agriculture and the EEC.
We should tear up this document and scrap this proposal, because the Government must be well aware that no good will come from the EEC, except for the organisers of conferences, hotel owners and the publishers of newspapers. We all know that it is a silly, worthless proposal, which is why it is daft for hon. Members to say that the best solution is for the agency to be located in Scotland, or anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: This has been a brief debate, but hon. Members have expressed a range of opinions. I shall try to answer most of the questions asked.
I listened in vain to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) to hear anything of relevance to the three items under consideration. It was interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he wants an interventionist agency that could compel witnesses and demand information from British organisations, presumably under threat of penalty. I know that the labour party has done a U-turn on Europe and that it wants enthusiastically to display its European credentials, but until this evening I did not know that that entailed a major extension of Commission powers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman cleared his speech with his shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, who I regret is not present this evening.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I did not suggest massive extension of Commission powers. There is no point in having a European agency—we believe that the Scandinavian countries and others should be involved—if it does not have the power to require evidence or to obtain the information necessary for it to do its job. If it is a voluntary agency, it will not work. Either it should not be set up or it should be given the powers necessary for it to be effective.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We heard the hon. Gentleman say that the new agency should be able to compel the Government and British organisations to supply data. If it is to be able to compel the supply of information, it must be able to apply sanctions and penalties if that information is not forthcoming. I should like to hear what penalties the hon. Gentleman has in mind, because that would represent a major extension of Commission competence into the workings of British Government and organisations. I hope that that fits in with the new environmentally friendly policy review recently published by the Labour party. I further hope that the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment will not be surprised when he reads the hon. Gentleman's remarks in the Official Report tomorrow.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) for introducing into the debate the report of the Select Committee on the Environment. I was pleased to have the general support of the Committee, in particular for resisting an enforcement role for the proposed agency. I listened carefully to his other remarks on the role of non-governmental organisations, which will be taken into account in the negotiations and discussions in Brussels that must be undertaken before the regulation is put into its final form.
I listened, too, to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West said about non-member states. Recent developments in eastern Europe might be relevant. We could be moving towards an eventual wider association of nation states in Europe. It is therefore particularly important that we welcome observer status for these countries. That is specifically included in the draft regulation. The proposal has the general support of not only the Government but other Community members.
We have already received bids for the agency's location from centres of excellence in various parts of the United Kingdom. It is far too early to distinguish between them or to put forward the claims of one above another. The bids show the range and depth of excellence in scientific research on environmental matters that already exist in the United Kingdom. This should strengthen Britain's bid to have the agency located here.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) rightly welcomed the need for comparable data. I reject his illiberal suggestion that the agency should have coercive or enforcement powers. In this, the hon. Gentleman appeared to agree with the Labour party. We do not see the need for compulsion either in theory or in practice. The new agency will draw on existing data, and to the extent that data do not exist, it is up to the agency to negotiate contracts to assemble and assess information.

Sir Russell Johnston: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that criminals should volunteer information about their crimes to the police?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The British Government have a record of making publicly available a huge range of data about the environment. We have nothing to hide. We have recently proposed a further extension of data that will be available under statute for public inspection. All this will be available to the proposed agency.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) again spoke about rain forests. We had an interesting debate on that subject on Friday and I respect the hon. Gentleman's continuing interest. He particularly asked about satellite monitoring. I shall ask my officials to ascertain the extent to which the agency will be able to draw on existing satellite monitoring techniques. Rain forests are a little wide of the agency's remit as presently envisaged, but everyone who is interested in the environment—the agency, Community organisations, national Governments and the public—has everything to gain by drawing together existing scientific knowledge.
We have a particularly good record in assisting tropical rain forest countries to manage their forests responsibly. We know that it is usually a matter of replanting rather than burning. The harvesting of hardwoods is not in itself environmentally destructive. It all comes down to the point, as underlined by my right hon. Friend the Prime


Minister in her speech to the United Nations, that many of these countries require technology and financial help. We are actively pursuing that course.
Much remains to be done to understand the algal infestation this summer in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham). I cannot give him a definitive answer, but I shall ask my officials to look into the points that he made. It concerns the agency in that it would obviously help if we could draw together the existing scientific knowledge on the subject, and I hope that that will help to prevent a recurrence of the unfortunate events of last summer.
The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) mentioned bids from Scotland for the location of the agency. I know that Edinburgh university is interested. I can say no more at present on that subject, except that it underscores the strength that Britain can bring to bear in our bid to have the agency located somewhere in the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) referred to the agency as a quango. It is not a quango and we are not setting it up. It is being established under treaty powers granted to the Commission by this House. The Commission has powers and responsibilities for the environment, given to it under the Single European Act. My hon. Friend voted against that measure, but it was passed by Parliament and he will agree that as such powers exist, it is better that they should be deployed on the firmest possible scientific base. As he said, it will not be an enforcement agency, but it will draw together what we already know about the environment so that actions taken, not only by the European Commission but by national Governments, are underpinned by the most up-to-date range of scientific information.
I stress that the setting up of the agency will help to ensure that the quality of environmental information generally available to member countries and the Commission is raised. The United Kingdom has much to offer in this respect from its long-established and experienced institutions.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8030/89 on a European Environment Agency and a European Environment Monitoring and Information Network and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of the Environment on 19th October 1989 and 9785/86 on the Fourth Environmental Action Programme (1987–1992); supports the Government's view that the proposal for a European Environment Agency and a European Environment Monitoring and Information Network provides the most appropriate means of enhancing a sound data base to inform and support Community environmental policy; and approves in general the guidelines for the Community's Fourth Environmental Action Programme.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Statutory Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Intruments, &amp; c.).

SOLVENCY (NORTHERN IRELAND)

That the draft Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 17th October, be approved.—[Mr. Sackville]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp; c.).

COMPANIES (NORTHERN IRELAND)

That the draft Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 17th October, be approved.—[Mr. Sackville.]

Question agreed to.

Haemophiliacs (AIDS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Before I call the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), I should draw the attention of the House to the fact that a case affecting haemophiliac AIDS victims is currently before the courts. Mr. Speaker has exercised the discretion given to him in relation to court cases which are sub judice in permiting this debate to go ahead, but I trust that hon. Members will seek to avoid as far as possible direct reference to the issues specifically before the courts.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for exercising his discretion in that way and for allowing us to debate a matter which is of great importance, as illustrated by the fact that there are present tonight so many of my hon. Friends—I use the expression advisedly—in all parts of the House. I am also grateful for the fact that two Ministers from the Department of Health are present.
The words "special case" are probably more overworked than any others in the political vocabulary, but tonight we are considering a group who really merit that description. Their numbers are known, their problems are tragic, and Government have a real moral responsibility for those problems. Although nobody has the means of solving them, Government can remove the financial anxiety which adds immeasurably to the acute and continuing stress of dread illness that their agent, albeit unwittingly, created.
There are 5,000 haemophiliacs in this country; 1,200 of them, including 200 children, were infected with the HIV virus before the Health Department officially told doctors, in September 1985, to use only the heat-treated version of the blood clotting agent factor X, which had itself brought new life and hope to haemophiliacs. Of those 1,200, 163 developed full-blown AIDS, and 107 of them have already died.
So we are dealing with a well-defined and inevitably sadly diminishing group of people. There will be no more victims, save perhaps for a few infected babies yet to be born. There will be no more victims because supplies of factor 8 are now safe. However, for these 1,200 that is small consolation because their supplies were not. Those supplies were obtained and administered through the National Health Service. No one can give back to these victims the hope of a normal life that was once theirs. No once can remove the uncertainty with which they and their families live from day to day—the uncertainty of when the bell will toll. If any group of people live in the shadow of death, they do. It is no wonder that their story has been described as the most tragic in the history of the NHS. Many of them carry the extra burden of financial hardship, or the even greater worry of not knowing how their dependants will fare after they have gone.
Many heart-rending cases have been brought to my attention. I received a letter today stating:
We have been married for 24 years and watched the treatment improve from plasma to factor 8. It led us to believe that the life expectancy of a haemophiliac was near normal. Because of this we chose to have a family. We now have three grandchildren. Once we learned of my husband's HIV status,

our world was shattered. It has affected all of us very badly. We were never ashamed to tell anyone that he was a haemophiliac. Now we all suffer in silence.
The daughter of a constituent wrote:
I have watched his treatment improve over the years. Imagine our horror when we were told that he had the AIDS virus.
Another of my constituents simply said:
Money is nothing compared to human life but it can give a family the ability to choose how their life should go forward. Families may feel that they need to move house if hostility has been experienced in their neighbourhood. Many haemophiliacs have cars through the notability scheme—how can a family cope with suddenly being without transport? A family which has been living on State Benefit needs financial support when the husband or father is very ill and certainly when he dies. The hardest part to accept is that this should never have happened.
Hon. Members will have seen innumerable letters like that, many of which have been circulated by the Haemophilia Society. No one who has studied this sad saga can accuse the Government of callousness or indifference. Two years ago, partly due to pressure from hon. Members on both sides of the House, the Secretary of State for Social Services announced at the Dispatch Box that £10 million was to be placed in a trust fund to help haemophiliac AIDS victims. That gesture was appreciated and many families have cause to be grateful. But, the Macfarlane Trust was not intended to provide compensation. It is a welfare fund to deal with specific needs at particular times. What these people need is proper recognition that they are the victims of the most ghastly and far-reaching of accidents.
The victims of accidents frequently sue those whom they hold responsible, but just as frequently the moral responsibility is accepted and an out-of-court settlement is made. That is not the same as saying that culpability is accepted. Those who suffered as a result of the Piper Alpha explosion, the Clapham train crash, or more recently, the sinking of the Marchioness just down the Thames from here benefited or are likely to benefit from out-of-court settlements. The Government should act in like manner towards these haemophiliac victims. Six hundred people have already begun court action, but the courts take time, and time is what they do not have. Moreover, some people have not even been able to begin proceedings because they do not qualify for legal aid and cannot contemplate a lengthy, costly struggle.
The problem is not unique to Britain. In other countries in which the circumstances of infection have been very similar, Governments have accepted their moral responsibility and agreed to compensate. In Canada, where there are 950 victims, the Government have opened an extraordinary assistance programme, as they call it, under which compensation is to be paid in the same manner as it is paid to victims of natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes. There are compensation schemes in operation in Germany, Denmark, Norway and France. In some countries, such as New Zealand, there are already fully developed no-fault compensation schemes from which all victims of medical mishap can benefit.
If the Government opt for an out-of-court settlement, they need not admit culpability. If the matter is dragged through the courts, it could mean sad consequences for haemophiliacs who are not infected. Although commercial pharmaceutical companies are not involved in any pending High Court case, plaintiffs and defendants have


reserved the right to call them to give evidence. It is not impossible that that could have the effect of stopping or slowing the supply of perfectly safe factor 8.
No one has suggested that these tragic victims do not have a case. No one disputes how they were infected. No one suggests that they were in any way, as a result of personal carelessness or lifestyle, responsible for the cruel predicament in which they find themselves. Everyone expresses sympathy, but only the Minister can effectively translate that sympathy into action—and not merely by adding more money to a trust fund administering means-tested benefits. Two years ago, the Government said that compensation could not be awarded other than by the courts. The Government now say that they cannot make an out-of-court settlement because the matter is before the courts. That simply will not do.
I often remember the lovely story about the artist painting the model. When the lady says, "I hope that you will do me justice," the artist replies "Madam, it is not justice you need—it is mercy." I am not asking for charity. I am not, even demanding justice. I am asking the Government to accept their moral responsibility and to show mercy to a group of people who, more than any other single group I can think of, manifestly deserve it. I hope that we shall have a full and good answer from the Minister, but whatever he says, unless he agrees to our request, the campaign will go on and we shall not go away. The Sunday Times will continue its thundering, and we shall continue our thundering.
I am glad to see so many of my hon. Friends present on both sides of the House. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who has done a great deal in this matter. We shall fight until we win the battle, but I hope that, as there are so many other battles to fight, we shall not need to wage this one any further after today. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give us the answer that we believe that he should.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) for leaving time after that distinguished speech for me to make it clear that his very genuine concern is widely shared on both sides of both Houses of Parliament. In my role as an Opposition Front Bench Member specialising in this field, I have had deeply moving correspondence from people with haemophilia and HIV in all parts of Britain. It is a dossier of despair, from which I have time to quote only from the letter of a constituent of mine, who writes:
While the MacFarlane Trust has been of help, a long-term solution it is not. It is wrong for us to have to depend on welfare handouts when the disease was contracted by no fault of our own.
An out-of-court settlement should be made promptly, so that I and my fellow sufferers can enjoy some sort of reasonable lifestyle before we die.
The case for an out-of-court settlement is overwhelming. Many of the victims of this huge disaster in health care have already died. Many more know that they have little prospect of living to see a settlement in court, and they rightly insist that posthumous justice is no justice at all. Their case is self-evidently unique and in my view deserves the unique response that it has received in other countries. Opposition Members want to see a no-fault compensation

scheme and we urge the Government to recognise that the plight of people with haemophilia and HIV argues unanswerably the need for such a scheme.
Another Thalidomide-style tragedy can and must be prevented. In that case, after years of campaigning, Distiller's finally accepted that an out-of-court settlement was unavoidable. Why cannot the Government accept that the victims of this disaster are just as deserving? They have been dealt the cruellest possible hand. They have to live not only in a genetic disorder, but with HIV as well. They are doubly stricken and in double despair as they await the outcome of this most urgent all-party plea on their behalf.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) on raising this case of the most tragic human misery of these haemophiliac victims.
I rise to speak because three of my constituents are haemophiliacs and HIV-positive as a result of using the blood product, factor 8, provided by the NHS for home treatment, and because their plight points up the weaknesses of the present compensation system, whereby negligence is the sole reason for offering compensation to victims of medical accidents, and then only after a long-drawn-out and costly process. As my hon. Friend has said, in these cases, time is the one substance in the shortest supply.
Over the weekend I met one of the haemophiliacs, a young man, with his wife and family. He told me of the psychological change that had come over him since 1985, when he was first advised he had the virus. He described how originally he was told that he had a one in 400 chance of contracting AIDS but subsequently has learned his chances are one in two, with a 75 per cent. chance of mortality in seven to 10 years. He is a man who will probably never know the joy of seeing his children grow up, for whom the future holds nothing, whose job promotion prospects are nil.
He is grateful for the £1,200 a year he gets from the Macfarlane Trust. It helps to pay for the extras he needs, but his worry is about his family, and who will pay for the mortgage if he is no longer able to work, or is no longer with them. He can make no provision for his family. He is precluded from taking out a life insurance policy because of the virus. In other words, if the worst happens, he fears for his home and for his wife and children—yet there is nothing he can do to help them.
He suggested that, if the Government would underwrite a life insurance scheme, he would happily pay the premiums. It was a generous suggestion, and it would be better than nothing. But in conscience can any of us really accept that this young haemophiliac, and the others like him, who were supplied by the NHS with what they believed was a tested, pure, life-saving product only to find it contaminated with a deadly virus, should be expected to manage on means-tested Macfarlane handouts, or be asked to wait for the result of litigation, which is at least 18 months away and may go against them? And if it does, what then? Do we walk away from them, and leave them with their tragedy?
The quality of their lives has been irreparably damaged—no-one denies that. They live with the ever-present fear of AIDS, knowing that over 100 have already died. Whatever compensation may be paid cannot restore what


they have lost, but at least we can ease their worries for their families if anything happens to them; and we can do that by setting up a compensation fund for their families now, and with it, the promise of payments for those already in need or who have contracted AIDS. That is my urgent request to the Government tonight, and I make it on both moral and humanitarian grounds.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) has certainly done a great service to the House by raising the plight of some 1,200 haemophiliacs who have become infected with the AIDS virus as a result of treatment with infected blood products. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health, whose responsibility this subject is, has only just returned from Brussels. She particularly wanted to join the debate, because she shares with me and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health a great concern about the plight of these haemophiliacs.
My hon. Friend has described a most moving story to the House. The record should show that, in addition to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M McNair-Wilson) and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) also in the Chamber at this late hour are my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) my hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), for Salisbury (Mr. Key) who has made representations directly to my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) who has questioned the Prime Minister on this subject, for Meriden (Mr. Mills) and for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), and the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). The level of attendance at this late hour is a sign of how seriously hon. Members take this subject.
All hon. Members would like to express their sympathy for those who are infected and for their families. It is particularly tragic that the coagulation products that were intended to revolutionise their lives have caused so much suffering. I appreciate the tremendous mental stresses under which those affected are living. I know that the six haemophilia reference centres provide specialist counselling. The Department provides financial support for those services, and since April 1985 we have provided nearly £1 million.
I am also conscious that the personal health problems for haemophiliacs with HIV may, in some cases, be compounded by the reactions of other people around them. The fear of AIDS has all too often led otherwise humane and sensitive people to prejudice and discrimination, which is completely unjustified. There is no scientific or ethical justification for discriminating against people who have the AIDS virus.
Clearly, too, there are financial worries for those who are infected with HIV. It is understandable that they should wish to live with dignity and make adequate provision for their families. Let me stress that the Government have already acted by setting up the Macfarlane Trust, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) has referred. It is named after an eminent haematologist. We set up that trust with an initial £10 million. When that ex gratia

payment was announced to the House in November 1987, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, then Minister of Health, said that we had recognised the very special circumstances of the haemophiliacs with the AIDS virus.
The Haemophilia Society had put to us a powerful case that the position of haemophiliacs was wholly exceptional and should be treated as such. Their employment prospects and insurance status were already affected by the haemophilia itself. The treatment that led to their infection was designed to help them live as near normal lives as possible. The hereditary nature of haemophilia can, and sometimes does, mean that more than one member of the same family may be affected. Providing the grant to set up the trust was a wholly exceptional measure which recognised those special circumstances.
Some commentators have been critical of what they see as the "means-tested" nature of the Macfarlane Trust—two of my hon. Friends referred to that. It is true that the trust deed limits the use of the fund to cases of "need", but positive criteria are not laid down and it is a matter for the trustees to allocate funds in the way which they consider best meets the needs of those who are eligible for help under the terms of the deed. I believe that the trustees carry out this task conscientiously and with sensitivity. They have been able to help a large number of people and make single payments for a wide variety of purposes arising from reasons of physical health and mental stress, including help with travel, accommodation and employment.
Regular payments help with the extra cost of living with HIV. In the period up to 31 October 1989, the trust has made over 1,800 single payments totalling nearly £1 million and implemented regular payments in more than 600 cases at a cost of nearly £1·2 million. Some have expressed fears that the £10 million may run out. We made it clear when we announced the £10 million grant that our mind would not be closed to representations that might be made at a later stage in relation to the amount available.
I would also remind hon. Members that the Government have made regulations to ensure that payments from the trust do not reduce any entitlement to income support, family credit and housing benefit.
Let me stress that the grant provided to the trust was not, and is not intended as, "compensation." The position in this country under successive Governments has been that there is no state scheme of no-fault compensation for those injured by medical treatment.
The case for alternative means of compensating victims of medical accidents was carefully investigated by the Royal Commission on civil liability and personal injury, which reported in 1978. It came down against introducing a system of no-fault compensation. The arguments for and against have not fundamentally changed. No-fault compensation may overcome the perceived unfairness of treatment between those victims of medical accidents who are awarded damages after proving negligence and those who are not compensated because either they fail to prove negligence or because negligence was clearly not involved. However, such a scheme would, in its turn, create unfairness between those who are disabled by a medical accident, who would then be compensated, and those who are equally disabled as a result of the natural progression of their disease who would not normally fall to be compensated under a no-fault scheme.
I want to refer briefly to the court action but, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be mindful of your ruling on the


matter. Some 600 haemophiliacs with the AIDS virus are pursuing compensation through the courts. The Department of Health, the Medicines Licensing Authority, which comprises the United Kingdom Health Ministers, and the Committee on Safety of Medicines, which gives advice to the licensing authority, are among the defendants. The legal advice which I have received is that it would be wrong of me to make any comments today which might prejudice the conduct or outcome of the case. Various allegations of negligence are made which we deny categorically. I am sure that the House will understand that I am unable at present to comment in more detail on these matters, as they are sub judice.
I should like to repeat the Government's sympathy for the plight of the haemophiliacs with HIV and their dependants. We have already expressed that in a tangible way with the £10 million ex gratia payment for the Macfarlane Trust. I should like to remind the House of what was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security when he was the Minister for Health. When announcing the grant, he said that our mind would not be closed to representations that might be made at a later stage.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is this a question of precedent and the feeling of the Department's legal advisers that the Department might let itself in for many other payments if it were not to defend itself on this, or is it seen as a one-off problem?

Mr. Freeman: We believe strongly that there was no negligence on the part of the Department of Health. You, Mr. Speaker, have said that it would be wrong to go into the merits of the case before the courts. However, we categorically deny any negligence. An entirely separate issue—it has been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack)—is the consideration of the plight of those who have suffered this appalling affliction.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is not the governing factor here that many of the victims cannot expect to live to see a settlement in court, and that posthumous justice is not justice? Is not that the special case that the Government need in order to concede the argument that the Minister has heard tonight from both sides of the House?

Mr. Freeman: The right hon. Gentleman has made a very telling point, which was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South. Many of the victims

have a short life expectancy and the matter is one of some urgency. We are seized of the significance of that argument.
I repeat the commitment given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security when he was Minister for Health, which is that our minds are not closed to representations that might be made about the adequacy of the sums provided.

Mr. Cormack: Can the hon. Members who are in the Chamber now come to see my hon. Friends the Under-Secretary of State and the Minister for Health to discuss the matter in detail?

Mr. Freeman: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, who is responsible for these matters, will be pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South and any or all the right hon. and hon. Members present. I will undertake to draw the record of this debate to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and officials in the Department——

Mr. Cormack: And our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister?

Mr. Freeman: I would be delighted to convey to No. 10 Downing street a copy of the Official Report. We shall study with great care this important debate. It has been a matter of great concern and emotion for all of us—I speak not only for myself, but my ministerial colleagues. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South that the matter will not rest with tonight's debate. We look forward to further discussions.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I believe that the Minister feels strongly about this issue, and his reply was totally sincere. However, a long time ago I was Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department of Health and I wonder whether Ministers might be unduly influenced by the lawyers' difficulties and the matter to which I have referred—setting a precedent. Is there not an argument for saying that this is a one-off situation and there is an element of culpability, which the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South explained very well?
In these unique circumstances, the Government should not feel bound by the terrible shroud of legal precedent. This is something different, and all of us with experience of these matters know that these are not run-of-the-mill cases, but a one-off situation. Am I being told that this is not a one-off situation?

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Twelve o'clock.